GST Order Passed Without Providing Personal Hearing Bad In Law, HC Quashes Same
The current Writ Petition (W.P.No.20469 of 2025) has been filed by a business named Tvl. Sree Anjaneya Blue Mettal Industries in the High Court of Madras, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is represented by its proprietor, Karthikeyan M.. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) is the respondent in this case. Petitioner here is challenging an order dated February 26, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Krishnagiri-I Assessment Circle.
Background of Case
The petitioner has asked the High Court of Madras to issue a Writ of Certiorari (A legal document requesting that a higher court review a case after it is tried in a lower court). The petitioner here is asking the court to review and quash the order.
Petitioner here is challenging an order dated February 26, 2025, passed by the respondent in FORM GST DRC-07. The order relates to tax matters under the GST (Goods and Services Tax) regime for the tax period from April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner claims that this order was unfair and violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, it should be quashed.
Previously, the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) from the tax authorities, asking why the particular action should not be taken against them.
The petitioner responded to these notices within the allowed time limit along with their explanations and documents under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, before any adverse order was passed.
Petitioner’s Argument
The lawyer of the petitioner, Mr K.A. Parthasarathy, argued that even though they responded to the notices timely, the tax officer passed the final order without even listening to their side (no personal hearing), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice, which basically means everyone should be given a fair chance to represent themselves.
Respondent’s Argument
The lawyer of the respondent, Mr V. Prasanth Kiran, said that:
- The petitioner was truly given multiple chances for a personal hearing.
- They claimed that personal hearings were held on three dates: December 10, 2024, January 06, 2025, and February 17, 2025.
- After these hearings, the tax officer passed the final order dated February 26, 2025.
Court’s Observations:
The judge of the high court carefully examined all arguments and submitted documents. Discovered following:
- No personal hearing was actually given to the petitioner before passing the final order, meaning the order was an ex parte order.
- As no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to represent their side, the court ruled that the order passed was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
- The court highlighted the significance of giving a fair chance to present one’s side, especially in matters affecting legal rights like tax liabilities.
Court’s Final Directions
After reviewing all the aspects, the high court issued the following directions:
- The impugned order dated February 26, 2025, is quashed.
- The case is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh review.
- The petitioner must now file a fresh reply along with all supporting documents within two weeks.
- The respondent (tax officer) must then consider this fresh reply and issue a clear notice at least 14 days in advance, giving the petitioner a genuine opportunity for a personal hearing.
- After the hearing, the respondent must decide the matter again, but this time strictly following the law and ensuring a fair procedure.