Dream Realinfra Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Dream Realinfra Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original (FORM GST DRC-07) and show cause notices (FORM GST DRC-01) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by disregarding the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The tax periods and the specific amounts in dispute are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of show cause notices and the subsequent passing of an order without a personal hearing, leading to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue regarding the mandatory nature of an opportunity for personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act has been conclusively decided by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the case of M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner. In that precedent, the Court observed that the scheme of the Act mandates a personal hearing when an authority contemplates an adverse order against a party. The Court found that the latter circumstance was applicable in the present case and that the Assessing Authority ought to have complied with Section 75(4). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the authority for reconsideration in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and considering all submissions and documents. The State counsel conceded that this issue was concluded by the aforementioned judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in original, bearing Reference No. ZD050823010591Q and ZD050823010263V dated 17.08.2023, and the show cause notices bearing Reference No. ZD050323015822U and ZD050423000318Y dated 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023, are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The respondent violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act by not affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. Respondent's contention: Show cause notices were duly issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, thus negating the need for a personal hearing.