Allowed

Balaramudu Chanampalli, v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Apr 2022WP/8768/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an IGST recovery order under Form DRC-07 alleging violation of natural justice. The High Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to schedule a hearing after issuing a notice, violating Section 75(4) of the APGST Act. The petition was allowed, and the order was remanded for a fresh decision after a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 14.12.2020 set aside and remanded to respondant No.1 for fresh consideration after giving notice of personal hearing.

Balaramudu Chanampalli, Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8768 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order passed by the First Respondent in Form DRC-07 vide Reference no.1/IGST, dated 14.12.2020, relating to the Tax Periods 04/2018 to 03/2019 under the IGST Act, 2017, as violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law, contrary to S.75(4) of the GST Acts, 2017, unjustified and unsustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass……”

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.3.

¶8

With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶9

It may not be necessary for us to go into the facts in detail for the reason that the order impugned is challenged mainly on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the I.G.S.T./A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.

¶10

Learned counsel submits that there is a variation in the amount shown in the show cause notice, dated 02.06.2020, and the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Having regard to the

¶11

¶12

above, he would contend that the matter be remanded back to the party concerned for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing.

¶13

The same is opposed by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax contending that a reading of Section 75(4) of A.P.G.S.T. Act contemplates that an opportunity of hearing would be given only when a request is made.

¶14

In order to appreciate the rival arguments advanced namely as to whether an opportunity of hearing is required to be given or not, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, which reads as under:-

¶15

“75(4) 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.”

¶16

From a reading of the above provision, it is very much evident that an opportunity of hearing shall be given when a request is made in writing by the person who is charged with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated.

¶17

In the instant case, a notice for personal hearing, dated 13.10.2020, was issued to the petitioner. But on that day, the Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner herein to produce documents for verification but however, did not give any date for hearing. Without hearing the petitioner, an adverse order came to be passed, which is impugned in this case. Therefore, it can be said that there is violation of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. It may not be necessary for us to go into the other aspects since the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶18

¶19

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1 in Form GST DRC-07 vide Reference No.1/IGST, dated 14.12.2020, relating to the tax periods from 04/2018 to 03/2019 under the IGST Act, 2017, and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for consideration of the same after giving notice of personal hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶21

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶22

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 22.4.2022 AMD

167

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.8768 OF 2022

¶29

Date : 22.4.2022

¶30

AMD

Balaramudu Chanampalli, v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaramudu Chanampalli, v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srikara Lakshmi Durga Agencies Vs the State of Ap

Naga Venkata Durga Prasad Jaddu Vs Authorized Officer

M/s. Annapoorna Tobacco Enterprises, Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited

Tadivaka Lakshmi Kumari Vs State Bank of India

Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs P. Sugunamma