HC Directs Dept. to Grant Hearing Opportunity to Assessee | Telephonic Conversation Insufficient
- News|Blog|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 27 July, 2023
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Jupiter Exports v. Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax - [2023] 152 taxmann.com 584 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
- Chinmaya Seth & A.K. Sethi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Sameer Vashisht for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the present petition, the assessee alleged that the department raised a huge demand of tax along with penalty without affording assessee any opportunity of hearing. However, the department submitted that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straightjacket formula.
The department further opposed the petition by contended that the assessee had violated provisions of CGST Act and had nothing more to argue than what was contended in reply to Show Cause Notice which was considered by Adjudicating Authority. The telephonic conversation with assessee could be termed as equivalent to personal hearing.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that Section 75 of CGST Act, 2017 itself provides that a hearing is required to be given to person against whom an adverse decision is contemplated and it cannot be contended on behalf of authorities that same is not mandatory. Moreover, telephonic conversations for a brief period cannot be a substitute for a personal hearing or for that matter, be construed as a hearing at all.
Therefore, the Court held that the impugned demand notice was to be set aside and the matter was to be remanded to pass a fresh order after affording petitioner a due opportunity of being heard.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- BA Continuum India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India W.P (L) No. 3264/2020 on 8-3-2021 (para 24), followed.
- National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 791
- A.S. Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 10 SCC 114
- Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi [1991] 2 SCC 716 (para 25) distinguished.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
