The judgment highlights the necessity for adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings, ensuring parties are given proper opportunities and clear information before adverse decisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act, has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P5 Order-in-original, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017. The dispute is in respect of the assessment year 2017-2018, and the petitioner was earlier served with Ext.P2 show cause notice dated 05.08.2024. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 written explanation to the said show cause notice, the same culminated in Ext.P5 wherein, the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected, and the order was passed rejecting the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner. This writ petition is filed challenging the same, on the ground that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity for hearing.

2. According to the petitioner, when the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared for hearing, in response to the notice served upon the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent directed the authorized representative to appear and make the submission before his clerk named Mukesh. Thereafter, the order was passed as if, the petitioner was heard by the 3^rd respondent. Apart from the above, it was also contended that, in Ext.P3 show cause notice, the reasons mentioned for invocation of Section 74 were very vague, and the specific reasons which prompted the 3rd respondent to invoke the said provision for declining the input tax credit, were not furnished to the petitioner, through the show cause notice.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner and opposing the reliefs sought for. In answer to the contention of the petitioner regarding the denial of opportunity for hearing, it is averred in the counter affidavit that, when the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared for hearing, he was directed to appear before one Mr.Mukesh, the Assistant State Tax Officer, for verification of the documents and invoices. Thereafter the 3^rd respondent heard the petitioner. Thus, the

3^rd respondent denied speci

4. Heard Sri.A.Kumar, the Senior counsel, assisted by P.N.Damodanran Namboothiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader.

5. As mentioned above, one of the specific grounds raised is that, the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity. According to him when the authorized representative appeared before the 3^rd respondent, he was directed to appear before another officer, and thereafter the order was passed by the 3^rd respondent considering that the matter had been heard.

6. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner, an affidavit sworn by the authorized representative of the petitioner is produced as Ext.P4. In the said affidavit, the said authorized representative, who is a Cost Accountant, has specifically asserted that on 30.01.2025, he appeared before the State Tax Officer in compliance of the directions from the office for a personal hearing. When he appeared before the officer, he was directed to appear before the personal staff/clerk named Sri.Mukesh. The personal staff/clerk sought the client details and took the file for marking attendance. In the affidavit, it is asserted that a proper hearing was not effected and instead, a subordinate officer in the office of the 3^rd respondent simply collected the details of the client. On going through the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent, the fact that the authorized representative was directed to appear before the subordinate officer of the 3rd respondent is admitted, but it is explained therein that, it was only for the purpose of verifying the