Tvl.Sri Nachiar Blue Metals vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Nachiar Blue Metals, represented by its Proprietor A.Murugan, filed two writ petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos.2441 and 2442 of 2025) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitions challenged orders passed by the first respondent, The Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, Madurai and Tirunelveli, dated 12.12.2024. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed in violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The core of the petitioner's grievance was the alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority before disposing of the appeals.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority, the first respondent, had indeed violated sub-Sections 8 and 9 of Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, by passing orders rejecting the appeals without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders confirmed that no hearing was granted, and the appeals were disposed of solely based on the grounds submitted by the petitioner. The Court found this to be contrary to the statutory requirement and the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders dated 12.12.2024 passed by the first respondent. The matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in compliance with sub-Sections 8 and 9 of Section 107 of the Act before passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appeals must adhere to procedural fairness, including the right to be heard, as mandated by Section 107(8) and (9) of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, violated sub-Sections 8 and 9 of Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, by passing orders rejecting the appeals without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to provide an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating sub-Sections 8 and 9 of Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner asserted that the impugned orders were passed solely based on the appeal grounds filed, without affording the petitioner a chance to be heard, which constitutes a violation of natural justice and the statutory mandate. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents (The Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, and The State Tax Officer).