The absence of a meaningful personal hearing, required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating the quashing of the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Dr. Malkiat Singh with learned advocate Mr. Arunkumar Soni for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy arising in the petition which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective parties.

4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 10.08.2024 passed in Form GST DRC-07 as well as show cause notice dated 29.05.2024 issued under Section 74 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For Short “the GST Act”) in Form GST DRC-01.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

5.1. The petitioner a Private Limited Company is engaged in the business of constructing and development of infrastructures. A show cause notice dated 08.01.2022 was issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC- 01, which was dropped by the respondent. Thereafter respondent no. 4 – Sales Tax Officer, Ghatak 24, (Gan) Range-7, Division-3, Gujarat again initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the GST Act read with Rule 99 of the Central/State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (For Short “the GST Rules”) by issuing an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 10.05.2024 proposing the demand amounting to Rs.23,01,066. Thereafter, the impugned notice dated 29.05.2024 was issued proposing the demand amounting to Rs.32,99,801/-

5.2. The petitioner submitted reply dated 06.06.2024 filed before the respondent no. 4 contending that the amount of Rs.1,17,082/- regarding ‘Ujjaval Infra Projects’ out of which the petitioner has not claimed Rs.99,408/- as ITC and the remaining amount of Rs.17,674/- was paid through DRC-03 on 03.06.2024. With regard to the amount of Rs.3,48,107, it was pointed out that the petitioner has not claimed ITC of Rs.92,896/- and the remaining amount of Rs.2,55,211/- was paid through DRC-03 on 03.06.2024. The petitioner also contended that the petitioner has not committed any fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade the tax and therefore, the respondent no. 4 could not have assumed the jurisdiction by initiating proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act.

5.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3-Assistant Commissioner, Ghatak-24 (Gan) Range-7, Division-3, Gujarat has already initiated proceedings for scrutiny of the returns filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. With regard to the ‘D.V.K.P. Engineering Services’ mentioned in the notice, it was submitted by the petitioner that the ITC amounting to Rs.6,96,982/- as alleged to have been claimed fraudulently by the respondent no. 4, the requisite documents for claiming ITC in compliance of Section 16(2) of the GST Act were uploaded and the details of transactions are also reflected in Form GSTR-2A. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 without considering the reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order on 10.08.2024. It was also the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 has passed the order in violation of Section 75 (4) of the GST Act as no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the adverse order.

6. Learned advocate Dr. Malkiat Singh with learned advocate Mr. Arunkumar U. Soni for the petitioner submitted that an opportunity for personal hearing before passing the order was not granted and the petitioner was contacted on phone which was considered