Tvl. Sree Amman Metal Works vs. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication) - 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sree Amman Metal Works, filed four writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging orders dated 06.02.2023, passed by the State Tax Officer (Adjudication)-2, Tirunelveli. These orders directed the petitioner to pay tax and penalty for different periods. The petitioner contended that their objections, filed after previous orders in W.P.(MD) Nos. 3945 to 3948 of 2022, were not considered by the respondent. They also argued that the impugned orders were non-speaking and passed without affording an opportunity for a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions on the limited ground that the impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, which is contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that a reading of the impugned orders did not reveal the reasoning of the authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to file a better reply with all documents and appear personally before the respondent on 07.07.2023 at 10:30 am. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's case and pass orders within one month from that date. The Court did not address the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed for being non-speaking and passed without considering the petitioner's objections, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent authority failed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing adverse orders, contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that their objections, submitted after the previous court orders, were not considered by the respondent. They further contended that the impugned orders were passed without affording an opportunity for a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the orders are illegal, invalid, and against the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent.