Ms Warmmax INDIA vs. Commissioner Of The SGST
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of an opportunity of personal hearing for the petitioner. The Court found the petitioner's contention to be sustainable, especially in light of the Revenue's inability to demonstrate that a hearing was provided. The Court quashed the impugned order. The Department was granted liberty to pass a fresh order after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing, is mandatory before passing an order adverse to an assessee under Section 73 of the GST Act.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Warmmax India, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The petition challenged an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. The counsel for the petitioner specifically referred to sub-section (4) of Section 7, which mandates a personal hearing when an order adverse to the assessee is contemplated. The Revenue, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, was unable to demonstrate that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the GST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for non-provision of a personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided, rendering the impugned order violative of natural justice. They relied on sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the GST Act, which mandates a personal hearing when an order adverse to the assessee is contemplated. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue could not show that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 7
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the order dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the respondent no. 2 U/s 73 of the GST Act. ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not recover any amount and direct the respondent no. 2 any amount to provide opportunity of personal hearing before passing any fresh order.”
Ms. Shabnam, learned co
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.