M/S Shri Balaji Agencies vs. Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shri Balaji Agencies, challenged an order dated 16.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner's sole contention was that the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2024 did not specify a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondents, the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, and another authority, argued that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 16.08.2024. The High Court considered the undisputed fact that no date for personal hearing was provided to the petitioner at any stage before the order was passed.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, and the failure to provide such an opportunity at any stage before passing the impugned order, constituted a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This violation of the principles of natural justice vitiates the order. Consequently, the Court overruled the objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition. The order dated 16.08.2024 was quashed. The Court directed the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a mandatory procedural requirement like providing an opportunity for personal hearing, as stipulated by Section 75(4), cannot be overlooked, and its breach vitiates the consequential order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 16.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the absence of a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, thereby violating Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice constitutes a mandatory procedural lapse, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act, rendering the impugned order invalid. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the writ petition suffered from a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 16.08.2024.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 16.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2019-20. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 20.05.2024, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Learned Brief Holder for the State of Utt
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.