SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8096

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Murali Purushothaman, J
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 23510/2024



Advocates:
ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS, ISAAC THOMAS, P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM, ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS, JOHN VITHAYATHIL, G.P. SMT. RESMITHA R. CHANDRAN

The court emphasized the importance of granting an opportunity of hearing to the person chargeable with tax or penalty, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST/KSGST Act.

Headnote:

CGST/KSGST Act - Affiliation Fees and Annual Administration Fees - Opportunity of Hearing

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner University was issued a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KSGST Act by the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) alleging non-payment of GST on the amounts collected by the University from its Affiliated Colleges as Affiliation Fees and Annual Administration Fees. The petitioner submitted a reply, but the 3rd respondent passed an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KSGST Act confirming the proposal in the show cause notice without considering the petitioner's reply and without granting an opportunity of hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the 3rd respondent's order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandate under Section 75(4) of the CGST/KSGST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing to be granted if a written request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty.

Issues: Whether the 3rd respondent's order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 3rd respondent's order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply and without granting an opportunity of hearing, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandate under Section 75(4) of the CGST/KSGST Act.

Final Decision: The court set aside the 3rd respondent's order and directed the 3rd respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's reply and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

JUDGEMENT

The petitioner University is established under the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.

2. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST/KSGST Act' for short) by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) alleging non payment of GST on the amounts collected by the University from its Affiliated Colleges as Affiliation Fees and Annual Administration Fees.

3. On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner requested for an adjournment and the receipt of the request was acknowledged by the GST Department vide Ext. P2 email.

4. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 05.03.2024 to Ext. P1. Ext.P3 reply was also uploaded in the GST portal and the petitioner has produced Ext.P3(a) screen shot of the GST portal confirming that the reply has been uploaded. The petitioner also received an e- mail acknowledging receipt of Ext.P3 reply.

5. The petitioner states that nothing was heard from the 3rd respondent after the submission of Ext.P3 reply. However, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P4 order dated 18.05.2024 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KSGST Act confirming the proposal in Ext.P1 show cause notice. In Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent has stated that the petitioner has not furnished reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice and was not present before the said authority against the proposal made therein. The petitioner states that the petitioner was not given any intimation or communication after Ext. P3 reply and Ext. P4 order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice as well as against the mandate under Section 75 (4) of the CGST/KSGST Act.

6.Heard Sri. Joseph Markos, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Resmitha R. Chandran, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7.In Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent has stated that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice. Ext.P3 is the reply submitted by the petitioner and Ext.P3(a) shows that the same has been duly uploaded in the Department’s portal. Ext.P3(b) is the email received by the petitioner from the Department acknowledging receipt of Ext.P3. Therefore, Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent is without reference to and without considering Ext.P3 reply submitted by the petitioner.

8. Section 73 (1) of the CGST/KSGST Act provides that, where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest and penalty. Section 73 (9) provides that the proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty, due from such person and issue an order. Section 75 of the CGST/KSGST Act deals with general provisions relating to determination of tax and sub sections (4) and (5) thereof read as under;

    “75 (4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”
    (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:
    Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.”
    Section 75 (4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted if a written request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, and if sufficient cause is shown,
            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top