Order Date – 27 July 2023

Parties: Arati Behera Vs State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Keonjhar & another

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, Arati Behera, made an application under Rule 142 (4) of the OGST Rules, 2017 on 29.04.2023 under Annexure-3 seeking 30 days’ time for submission of reply against Notice in Form GSTDRC-01, dated 31.03.2023 under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018.
• But instead of granting time, the order impugned has been passed. It was contented by the department that with regard to “option for personal hearing” the petitioner has put tick mark in the ‘No’ column. Therefore, the petitioner does not want to have a personal hearing. Therefore, the order has been passed.

Issue – 

• Whether the order passed without granting time is valid?

Order – 

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that once the petitioner is asking for time, there is no need for mentioning of personal hearing in the petition. However, the same should have been acted upon by the authority by giving opportunity of hearing as per the statute. The statute requires that at least three opportunities should be given to the assessee. The same has not been complied with.
• Thus, it was held that the opposite parties have shown haste in passing the order dated 24.05.2023, though the adjudicating authority had to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of law. In absence of compliance of such provision, the order so passed on 24.05.2023 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
• The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order under Section 73 of the Act by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

#Need for GST in India