M/S Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order passed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). This section mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be provided if a written request is made or if an adverse decision is contemplated against the assessee. In this case, the Assessing Officer had drawn conclusions adverse to the petitioner, and it was undisputed that no personal hearing was afforded. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, relied on an earlier order of the High Court in a similar writ petition, which had relegated parties to an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the Assessing Officer had violated sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act. The provision clearly mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be given when an order adverse to the interest of the assessee is contemplated. The Court found that this was the situation in the present case, and the Assessing Officer ought to have complied with this mandate. The Court emphasized the well-settled legal principle that where a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed in that manner alone. The Court distinguished the respondents' reliance on an earlier High Court order, stating that the facts were not similar and that the petitioner had already pursued and exhausted the alternate remedy, which was dismissed on limitation. The Court concluded that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that orders resulting in civil consequences require an opportunity of hearing and that the mandate of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act had been violated. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessing Officer violated sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act by passing an order adverse to the petitioner without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, when such a hearing was contemplated by the provision? The petitioner argued that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee, irrespective of a written request. They relied on the principle that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain way, it must be done so or not at all, citing Supreme Court judgments in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. and A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak. The respondents argued, by relying on an earlier order of the High Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 256/2025, that parties should be relegated to the alternate remedy available under law. However, the Court noted that the facts in the present case were not on par with the earlier decision, as the petitioner had already availed of the alternate remedy, which was rejected on grounds of limitation.