M/S. Ramprasad Gangaprasad And Ors vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors

Held

The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated. It noted that a show-cause notice was issued, and the petitioners submitted a written reply. The Court found that the petitioners did not request a personal hearing and that Section 75(4) of the GST Act only mandates hearing, not necessarily personal hearing. The Court also held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Adjudicating Authority. The Court distinguished between exercising jurisdiction irregularly and lacking inherent jurisdiction. The Court concluded that if the petitioners were dissatisfied with the order or its reasoning, the appropriate recourse was an appeal, not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as a statutory alternative remedy was available.

Facts

The petitioners, Ram Prasad Ganga Prasad & Ors., challenged an order of adjudication dated November 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Beadon Street Charge & Ors. The petitioners contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice by not affording them an opportunity of hearing. The State argued that a show-cause notice dated August 31, 2021, was issued, to which the petitioners submitted a detailed reply on October 1, 2021. The petitioners did not request a personal hearing in their reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated November 1, 2021, violates the principles of natural justice due to the alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the impugned adjudication order? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the adjudication order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. They contended that they were not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The State argued that a show-cause notice was issued, and the petitioners submitted a reply. The State contended that the petitioners did not request a personal hearing and that Section 75(4) of the GST Act does not mandate personal hearing, only hearing. The State also argued that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction and that any irregularity in exercising jurisdiction is distinct from a lack of inherent jurisdiction. The State pointed out that a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available.