The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench, dismissed a filed writ petition of Future Consumer Limited, contesting an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax u/s 73 of the GST Act. As per the applicant, they were refused the right to personal hearing u/s 75(4) of the Act.
The division bench Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi consulted on the claim of the applicant for the completion of the procedural prerequisite for asking for a personal hearing.
“The petitioner did not prefer any appeal within the period of limitation and directly approached this Court by way of writ petition solely on the ground that the opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of GST Act has not been afforded to him, therefore, the order is unsustainable in law.”
It was determined by the court that Future Consumer Limited did not appear before the tax authority and furnished no written answer or request for a personal hearing in retort to the show-cause notice issued u/s 73 (1).
It was mentioned by the court that Sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the GST Act cites that a chance of hearing will be granted in which a request is received in writing from the person levied to tax or penalty or any adverse decision is considered against the same person.
It was carried by the Division Bench of this Court that the chance of hearing is directed to the person’s chance of hearing and if the personal chance of hearing is not been furnished then the order is unsustainable and is obligated to be set aside.
It was mentioned by the court that the matter quoted by the applicants i.e., M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is distinct and in that matter, the applicant has furnished a response but was not provided a chance for a personal hearing.
In the same matter, the applicant does not answer the show cause notice (SCN) or attend the scheduled hearing before the Deputy commissioner. It was mentioned by the court that the personal hearings should be asked in writing as furnished u/s 75(4) of the GST Act or at least verbally if the party is present.
“When the person after receipt of the show-cause notice chooses not to appear before the authority to file a reply or to make a request for personal hearing, then after passing the final order, he cannot allege that an opportunity of hearing has been denied to him, therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd.”
The existing matter is for levying the tax liabilities of Rs 86,73,188 and interest and penalties of Rs. 1,16,65,438. It was cited by the applicant that the order is biased since it refuses the right of the personal hearing which is furnished u/s 75(4).
M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. has been quoted by the applicant where it carried that a personal hearing should be granted if asked, even when it is not asked in writing. The petitioner argued that they deserved the same remedy due to the similarity of the circumstances.
The court noted that the Petitioner did not submit a response or make any effort to request a hearing, which means they cannot assert that they were deprived of the chance to be heard.
The court rejected the petition and stated that the petitioner could appeal to the appellate authority while also requesting to condone the delay.
Read Also: MP HC: Officials Can’t Use IPC Provisions for Tax Offences Covered by the GST Act
If advised, the petitioner may submit an appeal on its merits to the Appellate Authority, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.
| Case Title | M/S Future Consumer Limited Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others |
| Citation | No. 29373 of 2024 |
| Date | 22.10.2024 |
| For the Petitioner By | Shri Aditya Goyal |
| For the Respondent | Shri Anand Soni |
| Madhya Pradesh High Court | Read Order |
