Mohammad Adil vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Adil, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated 21.10.2022 and a show cause notice dated 06.06.2022, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No.1). The petitioner sought to quash these orders and prevent any coercive steps. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the respondent violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by failing to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involved the issuance of a show cause notice, followed by an order, without a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the respondent had violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court referred to a previous decision by a Coordinate Bench in M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner, which interpreted Section 75(4) of the Act. In that case, the Court had observed that a personal hearing is mandatory when the authorities contemplate an adverse order against a party. The reasoning was that the scheme of the Act mandates a personal hearing in such circumstances. Consequently, the Court followed the precedent set in M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers, where the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authority for reconsideration in accordance with law. The learned State counsel conceded that the issue was concluded by the aforesaid judgment. The operative direction was to remit the matter back to the authority for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by failing to afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order dated 21.10.2022? The petitioner argued that the respondent's failure to provide a personal hearing constituted a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that this omission rendered the impugned order invalid. The respondent argued that show cause notices were duly issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to respond. Therefore, the respondent contended, there was no occasion to afford a personal hearing. The respondent did not cite any specific provisions or precedents in support of their contention.