M/S. Tata Steel LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (Petitioner) received a notice under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, from the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Division-2, Raipur (Respondent). The notice directed the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing but omitted to specify the date, time, and venue for this hearing. The petitioner contended that this omission rendered the notice illegal as it violated Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before determining tax liability. The Revenue argued that multiple opportunities were previously granted, which the petitioner did not avail, and that no specific request for a personal hearing was made, thus Section 75(4) was not attracted.

Held

The High Court held that the notice dated 11.08.2021, while mentioning an opportunity for personal hearing, failed to provide the essential details of date, time, and venue. This omission was found to be contrary to the spirit of Section 75(4) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted. The Court reasoned that for an opportunity of hearing to be meaningful, the recipient must be informed of the specifics of when and where to appear. Therefore, the Court directed the authorities to afford a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with Section 75(4) of the Act. The Revenue was instructed to fix a date for the petitioner's personal appearance, and if the petitioner failed to appear on the fixed date, the Revenue could proceed further. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal and liable to be set aside for failing to specify the date, time, and venue for a personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the absence of specific details regarding the date, time, and venue for the personal hearing in the notice dated 11.08.2021 makes the notice illegal. They relied on Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted. The petitioner asserted that no such proper opportunity was provided, rendering the impugned notice liable for cancellation. Revenue's Contention: The State contended that the petitioner was granted several opportunities to appear, which were not availed. They argued that since no specific application was made by the petitioner requesting a personal hearing, the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act were not applicable in this instance. The Revenue stated that a reply was permitted, and the petitioner did not seek a personal hearing.