Violation of Natural Justice Can’t be Argued if Assessee didn’t submit reply to SCN or Appear for Personal Hearing | HC

Case Details: Rajeev Kumar v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Ranchi - [2023] 155 taxmann.com 54 (Jharkhand)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rongon Mukhopadhyay & Deepak Roshan, JJ.
• Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Mahendra Kr. Choudhary & Parijat Saurav, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• P.A.S. Pati & Ms Ranjana Mukherjee, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a proprietorship firm and engaged in business of civil contract work. A demand-cum-notice of show cause was issued to the petitioner and no reply to SCN was ever submitted. He filed writ petition against the demand order passed against him by contended that there was violation of principles of natural justice as any opportunity of hearing was not provided. The department submitted that the date of personal hearing was fixed four times, but the petitioner did not respond to same.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that a reply was given only at stage of enquiry regarding pre-SCN queries made by Range Officer but admittedly the petitioner did not reply to SCN. The Court further noted that ample opportunity to appear before Adjudicating Authority was given to the petitioner but he failed to appear and letters of personal hearing were issued to him on address provided by him in GST registration but letters were returned undelivered.

Also, the letters were sent through e-mail ID which was available to the department, but he did not respond to said letters. Therefore, the Court held that the contention of petitioner that principle of natural justice had not been complied was without any basis and thus, the instant writ application was not maintainable.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer [1985] 3 SCC 378 (para 6);
• Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1 (para 6) and
• ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Corpn. of India Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 553 (para 6) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer [1985] 3 SCC 378 (para 3);
• Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1 (para 3) and
• ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Corpn. of India Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 553 (para 3)