Dream Realinfra Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Dream Realinfra Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order in original (FORM GST DRC-07) and a show cause notice (FORM GST DRC-01) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice, specifically alleging a violation of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent order in original by the Assistant Commissioner, which the petitioner seeks to quash.

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, 2017, 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 a party makes a written request or when the authority contemplates an adverse order against the party. The Court found that the latter circumstance was applicable in the present case, and the Assessing Authority ought to have complied with Section 75(4). Consequently, the Coordinate Bench had set aside the impugned order passed without affording a personal hearing and remitted the matter back to the authority. The learned State counsel conceded that this issue was concluded by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the instant petition was decided in terms of the precedent, quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in original, bearing Reference No.ZD0508230102700 and ZD0508230106OOZ dated 17.08.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, is 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 petitioner argued that the respondent violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, by failing to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. Revenue's contention: The State contended that show cause notices were duly issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, thus negating the occasion for a personal hearing.