The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Safan Fasteners set aside the order, since no pre-decisional hearing was granted before passing the order and the order did not any contain independent or cogent reasons to believe, except placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority, which was impermissible in law.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Trader quashed the Order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the Assessee.
The Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. dismissed the writ petition where the Assessee had challenged demand order on ground that it came to Assessee’s knowledge pursuant to issuance of recovery notice.
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Srinivasa Lorry Transport set aside the assessment and penalty orders on the ground that an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted before an adverse decision is taken, even if not explicitly requested and held that prior authorization is not required for assessment under Section 63 of the CGST Act. It was also clarified that Section 75(5) of the CGST Act does not mandate a minimum of three adjournments before an order is passed.
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case Chandani Tent Traders it was held that passing a order without giving an opportunity of a hearing is a violation of principles of natural justice.
The Honorable Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Bangalore Golf Club set aside the order as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner before passing an adverse order. The Honorable Court held that it is mandatory to grant the opportunity of hearing as required under section 75(4) of the CGST Act when an adverse order is being contemplated against the Petitioner.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of M/s. Eveready Industries India Limited allowed the writ petition and held that it is mandatory to grant opportunity of personal hearing and stated that the word “personal” is intended to be added before the word hearing in Section 75(4) of the CGST Act which was erroneously left out at the time of drafting.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Appliance (P.) Ltd. ruled that an Assessee should be given an opportunity to respond the allegations and submit the evidence regarding place of business. Hence, the matter remanded for reconsideration after affording personal hearing was provided to the Assessee and writ petition was disposed of.
Stay Yourself Updated on GST Adverse order can’t be passed without hearing assessee even if he didn’t file his response…
Assessee isn’t required to request for opportunity of personal hearing; it is mandatory to afford such opportunity
