M/S Future Consumer Limited Through Authorized Signatory Mr. Rajendra Babulal Bajaj vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case is distinguishable from M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. (supra). While Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates an opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing or an adverse decision is contemplated, the Court clarified that this opportunity is contingent on the person chargeable making a request. The judgment states that even an oral request is acceptable if the person appears and makes such a request. However, when a person receives a show-cause notice and chooses not to appear before the authority to file a reply or make a request for a personal hearing, they cannot subsequently allege that an opportunity of hearing was denied after the final order is passed. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for a personal hearing was not sustainable in these circumstances. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal on merits before the Appellate Authority along with an application for condonation of delay.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Future Consumer Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-14, Indore, under Section 73 of the GST Act. This order imposed a tax liability of Rs. 46,62,776/-, with interest and penalty, totaling Rs. 54,20,478/-. The petitioner did not file a reply to the show-cause notice or appear before the authority. Instead, they approached the High Court, relying on a previous judgment of the same court in M/s Technosys Security System Private Limited V/s Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and another, which had set aside proceedings for not providing a personal hearing. The revenue contended that the petitioner's case was distinguishable as they had not even filed a reply or appeared, unlike the petitioner in the cited case who had filed a reply but was denied a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief granted in M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and another, which held that a personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, despite the petitioner not filing a reply to the show-cause notice or appearing before the authority? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, citing the Division Bench judgment in M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. (supra). They sought similar relief, which involved setting aside the proceedings and remitting the matter for an opportunity of hearing. They also placed reliance on a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in M/s Jai Vindhya Udyog V/s State of U.P. Revenue's contention: The State argued that the petitioner is not entitled to similar relief because, unlike the M/s Technosys case where a reply was filed but a personal hearing was denied, the petitioner in this case did not file a reply and did not appear before the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim denial of a hearing.