The respondent had scrupulously followed Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and it was only the appellant who chose not to avail the opportunities granted by the respondent for the personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Personal Hearing –– The petitioner challenged the court’s order dated 13.08.2021 vide which the petitioner’s writ petition was rejected. The petitioner contended that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017. The court observed that a notice of personal hearing was given on 04.12.2020, but neither objections had been filed nor the appellant appeared in person for the personal hearing, therefore, subsequent PH was afforded on 14.12.2020. The court further observed that the respondent had followed Section 75(4) of the Act and it was only the petitioner who chose not to avail the opportunities granted by the respondent for the personal hearing. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petitions.
The respondent had scrupulously followed Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and it was only the appellant who chose not to avail the opportunities granted by the respondent for the personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Personal Hearing –– The petitioner challenged the court’s order dated 13.08.2021 vide which the petitioner’s writ petition was rejected. The petitioner contended that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017. The court observed that a notice of personal hearing was given on 04.12.2020, but neither objections had been filed nor the appellant appeared in person for the personal hearing, therefore, subsequent PH was afforded on 14.12.2020. The court further observed that the respondent had followed Section 75(4) of the Act and it was only the petitioner who chose not to avail the opportunities granted by the respondent for the personal hearing. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petitions.