M/S. Sendoz Impex Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory Namely, Pramendra Kumar Singh vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner, State Tax Department

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SENDOZ IMPEX LIMITED, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the actions of the Respondent-authorities, particularly Respondent No. 4, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No. 4 to conduct a hearing on a Show Cause Notice dated 25.08.2025, issued under Section 75(4) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, without pre-judging the issue. The petitioner alleged that the said authority had already pre-judged and pre-decided the matter, rendering the notice for personal hearing a mere formality. In the alternative, the petitioner prayed for the adjudication proceeding to be transferred to another officer of equivalent rank, citing malice in law and an intent to artificially create a GST demand.

Held

The Court, after perusing the documents and hearing both sides, was of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by granting a meaningful hearing to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been afforded and had availed the opportunity to file a reply. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 4 to hear the matter on 3rd December 2025 at 11:00 AM. This hearing was to be conducted after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and after going through the relevant documents and the law on the subject. The Court further directed that the lis be decided as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, by 31st December 2025. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer is entitled to a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing before an adjudicating authority, and any perception of pre-judgment by the authority must be addressed by ensuring a proper hearing is conducted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 4 in conducting the hearing pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.08.2025 violates the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by allegedly pre-judging and pre-deciding the issue, making the personal hearing an empty formality? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 4 had already pre-judged and pre-decided the entire issue, and the issuance of a notice for personal hearing was merely a procedural formality without any genuine intention to consider the petitioner's submissions. They sought a direction for adequate opportunity of hearing without pre-judgment or pre-decision. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state respondents regarding the alleged pre-judgment. However, the court's direction implies that a proper hearing was still to be conducted.