Tvl. Bharath Transports Vs State Tax Officer
Date: December 4, 2024
Subject Matter
GST law mandates a maximum of three personal hearings
Summary
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the necessity of granting a third personal hearing. The petitioner had received a notice in the form of GST DRC-01 and had already participated in two hearings. During the second hearing, the petitioner had requested additional time to produce documents and for a further hearing. However, the authority denied the third hearing and proceeded to issue an order without considering the request. The court emphasized that the law mandates a maximum of three personal hearings and that the petitioner should have been granted the opportunity to present their case before a decision was made. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent authority with instructions to grant the petitioner a third hearing on a specified date, allowing them to present relevant documents and arguments.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The primordial contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the Form GST DRC-01 notice dated 21.05.2024, the petitioner had filed his reply in the portal and thereafter, hearings were given on 02.07.2024 and 12.07.2024. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply on 02.07.2024 manually and on 12.07.2024, had sought further time for producing documents and for having the hearing some other date. However, without considering the same, the order has been passed without giving the mandatory third hearing to the petitioner. Hence, he would seek interference of this Court and would also submit that if the matter is remitted back and a date is fixed, on that date, the petitioner would appear and produce all the documents to substantiate his claim.
2. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the three hearings contemplated is not mandatory and is directory. He would submit that in spite of personal hearing granted to the petitioner, the petitioner had not appeared and produced documents, only based upon which the order has been passed. Hence, he would submit that the only available remedy to the petitioner is to approach the appropriate authority.
3. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel on either side.
4. Even as per the impugned order, for the hearing notice dated 04.07.2024, fixing the hearing on 12.07.2024, a reply had been manually submitted by the petitioner on 10.07.2024. He had sought for further time to present his case in person and also for production of records. But however, without granting the third hearing, the first respondent had proceeded to pass the order impugned herein. The provision mandates a maximum of three personal hearings to the assessee pursuant to the is incumbent upon the respondent to give the final opportunity.
5. In the present case, that has not been done. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to the first respondent to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the first respondent on 24.12.2024, on which date, the first respondent shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law subject to the documents produced by the petitioner.
6. With the aforesaid direction, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.