This case does not fall under the category of no opportunity of personal hearing was given, and hence this writ petition is liable to be rejected.
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Personal Hearing –– The petitioner challenged impugned assessment orders passed by the revenue for four Assessment years from 2017-18 to 2020-21, on the ground that the personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75 (4) of the Act had not been given to the petitioner. There is an appeal provided under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 but such an appeal has not been filed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving any such personal hearing, as mandated under the provisions of law, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 05.02.2021. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner was given PH on 04.12.2020, 14.12.2020. But on 14.12.2020, the petitioner had filed an adjournment letter and requested a further time fifteen days. He was allowed time by 29.12.2020. On 30.12.2020, the petitioner filed his letter of objections and appeared for the personal hearing on the same day. The court observed that more than twice, an opportunity had been given and last such opportunity was given on 30.12.2020, where the petitioner did appear and therefore, it cannot be stated that no opportunity had been given, and by thus, it has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 75 (4) of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the writ petition.
This case does not fall under the category of no opportunity of personal hearing was given, and hence this writ petition is liable to be rejected.
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Personal Hearing –– The petitioner challenged impugned assessment orders passed by the revenue for four Assessment years from 2017-18 to 2020-21, on the ground that the personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75 (4) of the Act had not been given to the petitioner. There is an appeal provided under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 but such an appeal has not been filed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving any such personal hearing, as mandated under the provisions of law, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 05.02.2021. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner was given PH on 04.12.2020, 14.12.2020. But on 14.12.2020, the petitioner had filed an adjournment letter and requested a further time fifteen days. He was allowed time by 29.12.2020. On 30.12.2020, the petitioner filed his letter of objections and appeared for the personal hearing on the same day. The court observed that more than twice, an opportunity had been given and last such opportunity was given on 30.12.2020, where the petitioner did appear and therefore, it cannot be stated that no opportunity had been given, and by thus, it has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 75 (4) of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the writ petition.