Back
PANKAJ BHATIA
Jai Vindhya Udyog – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
Heard Shri. Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the records produced by learned Standing Counsel in terms of the order passed by this Court on 03.10.2023.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of GST Act was dismissed as being beyond limitation.
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by respondent no.3 whereby a demand has been created under Section of 73(9) of GST Act.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bonafide firm doing its business in accordance with law and claimed ITC. It is stated that a notice was served on 06.08.2021 intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny.
4. From the record, it appears that a show-cause notice under Section 73 of GST Act was sent to the petitioner thereafter on 28.06.2022 and a reminder was sent on 22.08.2022. As the petitioner did not file a reply, an order came to be passed on 29.08.2022 without providing an opportunity of hearing in terms of the mandate of Section 7
Compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Act is essential to ensure fair hearing and upholds principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of granting a hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act before making any adverse decisions.
Procedural fairness is mandatory in administrative decisions, and failure to provide a hearing as required by statute invalidates adverse orders.
The court ruled that personal hearing rights depend on a formal request by the assessee, and decisions on limitation for appeals under special statutes cannot be easily extended without valid justifi....
The court emphasized the obligation of the authority to consider the application for extension and the finding that an appeal is no substitute for revisiting an ex parte order, especially when the de....
A statutory obligation exists to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before passing adverse orders under the GST framework, regardless of the applicant's request.
Procedural errors that violate natural justice, such as scheduling personal hearings before submission deadlines, render tax assessments invalid.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
