M/S Shree Sai Nath Construction Company Thru. Proprietor Mr. Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Of Revenue , New Delhi And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Sai Nath Construction Company, through its proprietor Virendra Kumar Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that no date for a personal hearing was fixed in the proceedings leading to the impugned order. The Standing Counsel, representing the respondent revenue authorities, stated that the notice sent to the petitioner indicated 'NA' (Not Applicable) for the date and time of personal hearing. The impugned order itself did not reflect that any hearing was granted to the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 18.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act was unsustainable. The Court found the decision-making process to be contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before passing an order. Furthermore, the Court observed that the non-grant of a hearing violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that the absence of a fixed date for hearing in the notice and the lack of any indication of a hearing being granted in the order itself demonstrated a procedural flaw. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority must provide a personal hearing as mandated by law, and failure to do so renders the order invalid and violative of constitutional principles.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 18.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is sustainable when no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, thereby violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the non-grant of a personal hearing, as alleged by the petitioner, amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without fixing a date for hearing, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The petitioner relied on the fact that the impugned order did not indicate any hearing was granted. Revenue's Contentions: The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, stated that the notice sent to the petitioner had 'NA' reflected against the date and time for personal hearing. The revenue did not explicitly argue that a hearing was offered or that the petitioner waived their right to one.