Adjudication Order Passed Without Affording Personal Hearing to Petitioner to be Set Aside: HC

Case Details: Concord Tieup (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh - [2023] 151 taxmann.com 41 (Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sheel Nagu & Dwarka Dhish Bansal, JJ.
  • Sanjay Mishra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Darshan Soni, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner has filed writ petition against the order passed under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that the order passed without affording personal hearing to petitioner. It was contended that notice mentioned about the personal hearing but no date, time and venue for personal hearing was shown in the notice.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the intention of the department was to give personal hearing to the petitioner as required under the law, but in the table given in the notice captioned as “Details of personal hearing etc.”, no Date, Time and Venue of personal hearing was shown.

Therefore, it would be sufficient to infer that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Thus, it was held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and matter was remanded to Adjudicating Authority to pass order afresh after giving personal hearing.