TRT-2025-113

M/S THOPPIL AGENCIES VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX

Date:-2022-08-12

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held – It is not in dispute that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The material on record also indicates that several documents relied upon by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order at Annexure-E were neither brought to the notice of the petitioner nor was he permitted to cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the said documents. Further, no opportunity to produce additional documents was given to the petitioner.The aforesaid facts and circumstances will indicate that in the absence of sufficient and reasonable opportunity being granted in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order is clearly in contravention of principles of natural justice and that the same deserves to be set aside on this ground aloneThe matter deserves to be remitted back to the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose off the same afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his contentions and documents and to hear the petitioner before passing suitable orders.
TRT-2025-114

SHIV KISHOR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND OTHERS

Date:-2020-07-13

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - It is not disputed that one of the impugned orders stands passed in violation of principles of natural justice.However for unexplained reasons and circumstances, without any prior intimation or knowledge, the matter was preponed and without affording any opportunity of hearing, decided, holding the view of the revenue. The order does entail civil and pecuniary consequences, causing prejudice to the petitioner. On all fours, principles of natural justice stand violated.As such on this short ground alone, the impugned order dated 02.03.2020 and the resultant order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle, Bihar, Patna are quashed and set aside with the matter remanded back to the authority for consideration afresh.
TRT-2025-115

M/S SWASTIK TRADERS THRU. PARTNER MR. ANKUR AGARWAL VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE & ORS

Date:-2019-07-22

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play.Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice. The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice.
TRT-2025-116

M/S CSK REALTORS LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST

Date:-2020-08-13

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - In view of the said legal position, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent ought to have provided a personal hearing to the petitioner, since the petitioner requested for it specifically in its objections dt.18.02.2020 filed by it to the show cause notice issued on 31.01.2020 to it by the 1st respondent, and that failure of the 1st respondent to do so is a violation of principles of natural justice warranting setting aside of the impugned order.The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; the 1st respondent shall provide a personal hearing to the petitioner; and then the 1st respondent shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with and communicate it to the petitioner. 
TRT-2025-117

M/S G. POWER SOLUTION VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Date:-2022-08-17

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held that - We are of the considered view that this Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.
TRT-2025-118

RAKESH ROSHAN VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (APPEAL) , ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MUNGER CIRCLE, MUNGER.

Date:-2022-05-17

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - we are of the considered view that this Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any reasons sufficient even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were to be ex parte in nature.
TRT-2025-120

M/S. GODAVARI COMMODITIES LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (ADMINISTRATION) RANCHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, RANCHI., ASSISTANT COM

Date:-2022-04-18

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Form GST DRC 01 was issued without specifying any date of hearing and, thereafter, straightaway, an Adjudication Order was allegedly passed fastening liability of tax, interest and penalty upon the Petitioner. From the order sheet, it is evident that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and the purported Adjudication Order was passed on the first date itself after issuance of the summary of show cause notice. This itself clearly reveals that the entire adjudication proceedings have been carried out in stark disregard to the mandatory provisions of the GST Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice and, thus, the Adjudication Orders, allegedly are liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground also.
TRT-2025-137

Suraj Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Asansol Charge, West Bengal Goods and Service Tax & Ors.

Date:-2022-07-05

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as appears from record and submission of the parties, the aforesaid impugned order dated 9th March, 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the officer concerned for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case and the impugned order is set aside only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice
TRT-2025-138

Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs Assistant Commissioner, Asansol Charge, West Bengal Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

Date:-2022-06-14

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - On perusal of the impugned adjudiction order it appears that though the Adjudicating Authority concerned has recorded that the impugned order has been passed after considering the reply filed by the petitioners but nowhere it appers that the petitioners’ request for personal hearing was either considered or rejected.Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to contradict the aforesaid admitted position which appears from record that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners in spite of their request and that neither such request of the petitioner was considered nor rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and submission of the parties, the aforesaid impugned order dated 9th May, 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back.
TRT-2025-139

M/S MBR FLEXIBLES LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (ENFORCEMENT) DIVISION 1

Date:-2022-06-08

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - It is clear from the record that Notice as well as order impugned was passed on the same date i.e. 06/01/2022. An opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioners and therefore, it is in breach of principles of natural justice.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petition requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 06/01/2022 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. 
TRT-2025-173

M/s. Om Sai Ram Enterprises, a Proprietorship concern Vs 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of State Tax, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.

Date:-2022-09-05

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - After going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that admittedly; no opportunity of personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner and he was also not given the relied upon documents. This Court in the case of M/s. Godavari Commodities Ltd.(supra) has laid down the law with regard to opportunity of personal hearing.  In the instant case on 25.02.2020 DRC-01 A (intimation of tax) DRC-02 (Summary of Statement) and intimation of liability under Section 74 (5) of the Act was issued on the same date i.e. 25.02.2020, thereafter, on 04.06.2020 summary of show cause notice in the form of DRC-01 along with show cause notice was issued, fixing the date as 03.07.2020 for filing reply and thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without fixing any date for hearing adjudication order has been passed on 06.07.2020.  In view of the aforesaid discussions, since opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner; interest of justice demands that the matter should be remitted back to the authority for compliance of the necessary provision of the Act. Consequentially, adjudication order dated 15.09.2020 is quashed and set aside
TRT-2025-515

M/S HITECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT

Date:-2022-10-06

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - There is no gainsaying that the impugned orders came to be passed without extending opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. In respect of the orders relating to three assessment years, the petitioner was not heard. While it is true that in reply in prescribed form given by the petitioner, in response to show-cause notice, the petitioner has indicated that he did not opt for personal hearing.Learned AGP could not dispute the proposition enunciated from the decision in M/s. Alkem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP in totality of the facts and circumstances, acted fairly to make a statement before the Court that the competent authority-respondent, would be giving personal hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done within three weeks from today and thereafter pass afresh orders in connection with the reassessment order.The competent authority, respondent, will give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within three weeks from today and pass in accordance with law, fresh orders within two weeks from the date of affording such personal hearing.
TRT-2025-516

ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Date:-2022-02-04

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - A perusal of the provisions of Section 78, referred to above, would indicate that no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the assessee before the expiry of three months from the date of the service of the order. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, within one month, the proceedings came to be initiated in the form of attachment of the factory premises.Having regard to the materials on record, one thing is for sure that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the writ applicant by the concerned authority before passing the impugned order. Although a specific request in this regard was made, yet, the impugned order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. Section 75(4), referred to above, makes it abundantly clear that an opportunity of hearing has to be given, more particularly, in those cases where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty and without any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.We are of the view that we should give one opportunity to the writ applicant to appear before the respondent No.2 and make good his case.
TRT-2025-593

Vinayaka Steels Vs State Tax Officer (Circle) Krishnagiri – I, Dharmapuri Salem.

Date:-2022-11-21

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The main ground argued relates to the violation of principles of natural justice. The pre-assesment notice in DRC-01 has been issued on 25.05.2022 and the order proceeds on the basis of the petitioner's reply filed on 08.02.2022 in response to a verification of the petitioner's return in Form ASMT – 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not responded to notice dated 25.05.2022. Be that as it may, it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated 08.02.2022 by way of a cryptic one liner stating 'dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far'.
TRT-2025-793

M/s Paras Industrial Sales Vs State of UP and another

Date:-2022-12-15

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - It is evident that the order of assessment dated 13.9.2022 was passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 74 of the Act, 2017 forthe assessment year 2017-18 without affording opportunity of personal hearing as sought by petitioner. The act of the respondent no. 2 in denial of the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner is in clear contravention of the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017. The element of principles of natural justice incorporated in the statutory provisions cast a mandate on the statutory authority to follow the procedure for finalization of its action. The assessment order dated 06.09.2022 as rectified on 13.9.2022 is, thus, found to be illegal being in contravention of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 and is hereby set-aside.
TRT-2025-829

M/s Mahendra Sponge and Power Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax (SGST) Circle-9, Raipur, Civil Lines, Raipur

Date:-2023-01-09

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar if there is violation of principles of natural justice.  Irrespective of the fact as to whether the appellant had filed reply or not, it is evident that the appellant had prayed for a personal hearing, which was, admittedly, not granted to theappellant.In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it will not be equitable to relegate the appellant to avail alternative remedy.Taking that view, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.05.2022 as well as the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the respondent are set aside and quashed.
TRT-2025-838

M/S EAGLE FIBRES LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Date:-2023-01-12

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The decision of this Court in case of Graziano Trasmissioni India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat [2022(66) G.S.T.L. 38 (Guj.)] and Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India [2021(46) G.S.T.L. 113 (Guj.)] and other decisions will need to come to the rescue of the petitioner which insist on providing the opportunity of personal hearing when any adverse decision is contemplated, even without any request for personal hearing on the part of the party concerned.
TRT-2025-850

M/S. CHANDNI CRAFTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DIVISION-A, JODHPUR

Date:-2023-01-17

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The authority conclusively found that the natural justice had not been followed by the adjudicating authority, however, on the basis that natural justice was duly followed during appeal proceedings, did not interfere with the order on account of the said aspect of violation of principle of natural justice.It is well settled that a failure of natural justice in the authority of first instance cannot be cured by sufficiency of natural justice in the appellate body, else the same would encourage the tendency of the authorities to give a short shrift to the proceedings before them.In view of the above fact situation, wherein admittedly the principles of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority only on account of the fact that it had provided opportunity of hearing, did not interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority, both the orders cannot be sustained.Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
TRT-2025-852

Santosh Kumar Roy Vs The State of Jharkhand and 3 others

Date:-2023-01-24

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it transpires that a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the JGST Act, 2017 dated 7.1.2022 (Annexure-1) for the tax period January 2019-February 2019 was issued. However, from bare perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the same is issued in a format without striking out of irrelevant particulars, thus the same is vague and does not spell out clearly the contravention for which the petitioner is charged. It is in fact, worse than summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 of the same date.From record it further transpires that the Deputy Commissioner Deoghar had proceeded to issue of summary of order in Form GST DRC 07 on 9.2.2022 without any adjudication order. Thus, it appears that the issuance of show cause notice as well as consequential issuance of DRC-07 is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of NKAS Ltd.Having regard to the facts of the case that the show cause notice is in a format and is not in a strict compliance of Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act and Rule 142(1)(a) of the Rules and since the principle of natural justice has not been complied in the instant case, the ground of alternative remedy is not acceptable by this Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove the instant application is allowed and the impugned show cause notice and DRC 01; both dated 7.1.2022 and also the summary of order issued under DRC-07 dated 9.2.2022, are hereby, quashed and set aside.
TRT-2025-950

Sendhil Kumar Vs The State Tax Officer

Date:-2023-02-13

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Admittedly, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the impugned assessment proceedings as seen from the impugned assessment order. An adverse decision has also been taken by the respondent against the petitioner in the impugned assessment order. Therefore, necessarily the impugned assessment order has to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act, 2017 and remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. 
TRT-2025-971

SKS Builders and Promoters Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Date:-2023-03-06

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The personal hearing has, admittedly, not been fixed by date or time and this is a gross flaw in this order, which this Court is tired of pointing out. The petitioner has also in compliance with the notice, filed a submission on 29.11.2022, though without any supporting documents. \Inter alia, the petitioner asks for a hearing in person prior to the issue being decided. The officer has brushed aside the request for personal hearing, proceeding instead to straight away pass the impugned order without hearing the petitioner.That apart, the provisions of Section 75(4) which deal with the general procedure to be followed in determination of tax, specifically mandate that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable to tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated as against such person.The sum and substance of Section 75(4) is that a personal hearing shall be granted in all matters prior to finalisation of assessment except where the stand of the assessee is intended to be accepted by the Department. Thus, on this score, the officer has grossly erred in proceeding to finalise the impugned assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice. 
TRT-2025-972

Debabrata Das -versus Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CGST & CE), Siliguri Commissionerate & Ors.

Date:-2023-03-10

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The initial show cause-cum-demand notice which was issued on October 1, 2020 ought to have been replied within the time specified in the said notice or immediately thereafter. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice nearly ten months after the same was issued. Even at the adjudication stage, repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner for production of necessary documents. The petitioner all along sought adjournments but never produced the necessary document before the authority either in person or in the virtual mode.It does not appear that there was any bona fide intention on the part of the petitioner to produce the documents as sought for. The petitioner went on buying time by submitting repeated requests for adjournment. The Order-in-Original was passed on September 14, 2021. Even thereafter the petitioner chose not to file the appeal within the prescribed period.The Corona Pandemic substantially ebbed in the year 2021 and as opportunity was given for virtual hearing, the petitioner ought to have availed the same.The conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be a bona fide one. At such a belated point of time, the Court is of the opinion that, the matter is not required to be remanded back to the authority for reconsideration. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
TRT-2025-1003

Sri Gayathri Agencies Vs The State Tax Officer, Salem Town (West) Assessment Circle, Salem.

Date:-2023-03-01

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - .Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017 makes it clear that in cases, where an adverse decision is taken by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, personal hearing is mandatory. Admittedly, in the assessment proceedings, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This being the case, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned assessment order has been passed contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017, which mandates personal hearing, the impugned assessment order dated 31.10.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned assessment order dated 31.10.2022 passed in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.
TRT-2025-1010

B. RAJENDER REDDY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, THE UNION OF INDIA

Date:-2023-03-14

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Admittedly, insofar personal hearing is concerned, notice was not served upon the petitioner. Even if we accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1, then also we fail to understand as to why the notice for personal hearing was sent by registered post when the show cause notice was sent through e-mail. Be that as it may, for failure of the 1st respondent to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, we are of the view that the impugned order stands vitiated.
TRT-2025-1138

Subodh Kumar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Date:-2023-05-11

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Considering the peculiar facts situation in the instant case, namely that by way of a third party garnishee order, the entire tax demanded from the appellant have been recovered, we are of the view that the revenue will not be prejudiced if a fresh opportunity of personal hearing is granted to the appellant to put forth his submissions.The submission of the learned advocate appearing for the respondents/State is that the interest of the revenue should be protected. In our view, the interest of the revenue has been sufficiently protected inasmuch as the entire tax demanded under the three impugned orders have been fully recovered by way of garnishee proceedings.In the light of the above, the writ petitions as well as these appeals are disposed of by directing the appellant to treat the orders under Section 74(9) of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, 2017, which were impugned in the writ petitions as the show-cause notice and the appellant is directed to file his objections to the notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgement and order.On receipt of the objections/replies, the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bardhaman Charge shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant or his authorised representative and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance in law. The amount, which have already been recovered by way of garnishee proceedings shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed in terms of the above directions.
TRT-2025-1222

Rajeev Kumar Vs The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, The Additional Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Sub-Commissioner

Date:-2023-09-01

In:-service tax

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no

Held - It transpires that no reply to the “SCN” was ever submitted by the petitioner. Even the date of personal hearing was fixed four times i.e., on 27.10.2022, 25.11.2022, 07.12.2022 and 04.01.2023, however, the petitioner did not respond to the same.It is further evident that the Assessee was given ample opportunity to appear before the adjudicating authority but he failed to do so. The letters of personal hearing were issued to him on the address “M/s Rajeev Kumar, Lukiya Petarwar, Bokaro Steel City, 827001” provided by petitioner-assessee in their GST registration but the letters were returned undelivered. It further transpires that the letters were also sent to the assessee through e-mail ID i.e. rajeevkumar020180@gamil.com which was available to the department but the Assessee did not respond to the said letters. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that principle of natural justice has not been complied is misplaced and misconceived and without any basis. As a matter of fact, in para-9 and 10 of the impugned Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority has clearly stated giving details of opportunity provided to the Assessee. As such the contention of non-fulfillment of natural justice is not sustainable in the background of this case.Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned Order-in-Original, inasmuch as, enough opportunities were provided to the petitioner by issuing SCN and also fixing date of personal hearing for four times; but the petitioner did not respond to either of them.
TRT-2025-1241

M/s Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Date:-2024-01-12

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 reads as under: "An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person."  Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017 specifically states 'or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person'. Since in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as "NO" in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed. This Court has already taken a similar view in M/s. Mohini Traders. In view thereof, all the writ petitions are allowed on the sole ground of opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned in all four writ petitions are quashed.
TRT-2025-1257

M/s. Metal Trade Incorporation Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

Date:-2024-02-02

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no

Held - The show cause notice clearly states that the petitioner was being provided an opportunity of personal hearing. Likewise, the reminder notice dated 02.09.2023 also indicates that a personal hearing was being provided to the petitioner on 05.09.2023. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is no doubt anomalous that such personal hearing was provided before the last date fixed for the submission of a reply. Even so, nothing prevented the petitioner from attending the personal hearing and thereafter submitting a reply to the show cause notice. Admittedly, this was not done. Therefore, I conclude that principles of natural justice were not violated.
TRT-2025-1295

Eveready Industries India Ltd. Lko. Thru. Signatory Sh. Sounik Mukherjee Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance , U.P. Lko. And Another

Date:-2024-05-03

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties has gone through the leading judgment in the case of M/s Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals (supra) and finds that the said judgment although has read into the language of Section 75(4) of the Act and the right of “personal” hearing, it has not mentioned any causes omissus on the part of the legislature reading into the statute words like "personal" hearing" as the Act itself only states that an opportunity of hearing shall be given. Order is reserved. Till pronouncement of the judgement, the impugned orders passed by the assessing authority shall remain stayed.
TRT-2025-1314

REGENCY HOSPITAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

Date:-2025-03-06

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Once the reply to the show cause notice was filed, the indication made in the order impugned that no reply has been filed and various pleas, which were taken in reply to the show cause notice have not been considered, clearly shows non application of mind to the record of the case. So far as issuance of notice for personal hearing is concerned, the material placed on record (Annexure - 3 & 4 to the petition) clearly indicates that the details of authorized signatories are different from the e-mail address on which the notices for personal hearing had been sent and therefore, sending of notices on e-mail address, which was abandoned and changed under intimation to the respondents, cannot be used by the respondents to indicate that despite notices for personal hearing, the petitioner did not appear. In view of above fact situation, it apparent that the order impugned dated 15.01.2025 has been passed without considering the response to the show cause notice, which was already on record, and without affording opportunity of personal hearing and as such, the same cannot be sustained.