M/S Paras Industrial Sales Through Its Proprietor vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that the assessment order dated 06.09.2022, as rectified on 13.09.2022, was illegal and in contravention of Section 75(4) of the CGST-UPGST Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner had clearly opted for a personal hearing in their reply dated 23.12.2021, and the notice dated 17.12.2021, despite mentioning the possibility of a personal hearing, did not provide a specific date, time, or venue ('NA' was mentioned). This denial of an opportunity for personal hearing, despite the petitioner's request and the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) (which requires a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated or requested), constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court followed the precedent set in Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals, emphasizing that the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 is not a bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of such violations. The assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Paras Industrial Sales, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.09.2022, rectified on 13.09.2022, passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of the CGST-UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that despite opting for a personal hearing in their reply dated 23.12.2021 to a show cause notice dated 17.12.2021, no date, time, or venue for the hearing was communicated. The respondent contended that a reminder notice was issued, and no further hearing was required as the petitioner had not replied to a previous notice dated 27.08.2020. The Court sought instructions from Respondent No. 2 regarding the denial of personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 06.09.2022, as rectified on 13.09.2022, passed by Respondent No. 2 is illegal for violation of the principles of natural justice due to denial of personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the CGST-UPGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they had explicitly opted for a personal hearing in their reply dated 23.12.2021, but no intimation of date, time, or venue was provided, rendering the assessment order illegal. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 others, which held that an opportunity for personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) when an adverse decision is contemplated or requested. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the notice dated 17.12.2021 was a reminder, and no further opportunity for personal hearing was necessary as the petitioner had not filed a reply to the earlier notice dated 27.08.2020.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1518 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Paras Industrial Sales Through Its Proprietor Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Agrawal,Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent revenue.
This petition is directed against the assessment order dated 06.09.2022 as rectified on 13.9.2022 (Anneuxre-4) passed by respondent no.2 under Section 74 of C.G.S.T-U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2017'). The only issue for consideration has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on receipt of the show cause notice dated 17.12.2021 issued by respondent no.2, a reply dated 23.12.2021 was submitted by the petitioner and in the documents uploaded in Form GST DRC 06, the petitioner opted for personal hearing by tick marking the relevant column. The copy of said reply in the requisite form has been appended at page '40' of the paper book. However, the date, time and venue of the personal hearing was no
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.