Allahabad HC: Missing Reply to SCN Can’t Remove the Chances of Personal Hearing U/S 75(4)

Not replying to a show cause notice does not take away the chance for a personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Allahabad High Court ruled.

Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act furnishes that a chance for a hearing should be provided when asked in writing or where any negative action is contemplated against the same person.

Read Also: Madras HC Directs Respondents to Issue a New SCN, No Hearing Opportunity Was Given

The bench consisting of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla ruled that there is a dual need engrained in the principles of natural justice.

“First concerning the submission of written reply and the second for an oral hearing. Failure to avail of one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be fulfilled independently.”

A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 73 of the UPGST Act which furnishes a chance to file a reply. Under the column for “date of personal hearing”, Not Applicable was stated.

The applicant should have been provided a chance for a personal hearing, the court noticed. The court ruled that not filing an answer as contemplated in the SCN shall direct to the closure of the chance of filing a response, however, the same could not opt for the correct personal hearing mandated by Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act.

“Hence, on service of notice, the applicant had sought to file its reply only. Noncompliance with that SCN notice may have only led to the closure of the opportunity to submit a written reply. However by the express provision of Section 75 of the Act, even in that situation, the petitioner did not lose its right to participate in the oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against the petitioner, may be dropped.”

The order impugned was opposite to the mandatory practice and, therefore, set it aside, the court ruled. The applicant was provided a chance to furnish an answer in person to the assessing authority.