Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Om Sai Ram Enterprises, was subjected to an inspection under Section 67 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (JGST Act). During inspection, the department alleged that the petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC), including ITC claimed without actual receipt of goods and based merely on paper transactions.

Following the inspection, the petitioner appeared before the authorities whenever summoned and produced the required records. Subsequently, an intimation under Section 74(5) and Forms DRC-01A and DRC-02 were issued.

Thereafter, the department issued show cause notices under Section 74 and later passed a joint adjudication order under Section 74(9) for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, demanding tax, interest and penalty through GST DRC-07.

The petitioner challenged these proceedings before the Jharkhand High Court primarily on the ground that no personal hearing was granted before passing the adjudication order and relied-upon documents were also not supplied.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an adjudication order under Section 74 of the JGST Act can be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing.
  2. Whether failure to provide relied-upon documents violates the principles of natural justice.
  3. Whether the adjudication order and consequential demand notices are sustainable in law when statutory requirements under Sections 75(4) and 75(5) are ignored.
  4. Whether the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 bars the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction in cases involving violation of natural justice.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

  • The department wrongly treated the intimation issued under Section 74(5) as a substitute for a valid show cause notice.
  • The show cause notice reflected a pre-determined conclusion, thereby indicating that the authority had already decided the matter.
  • No opportunity for personal hearing was provided before passing the adjudication order.
  • No relied-upon documents, including the intelligence note and authorization documents, were supplied despite repeated requests.
  • The absence of a hearing and denial of documents caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and violated statutory provisions as well as the principles of natural justice.
  • Reliance was placed upon the Jharkhand High Court decision in M/s. Godavari Commodities Ltd. regarding the mandatory requirement of personal hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

The State submitted that:

  • The writ petition was not maintainable because an effective appellate remedy was available under Section 107 of the JGST Act.
  • The petitioner had opportunities to produce books of accounts and other records but failed to furnish complete documentation.
  • Therefore, the petitioner should approach the appellate authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

However, the State could not dispute that no personal hearing had been granted before passing the adjudication order.

Court Order / Findings

The Jharkhand High Court held that:

  • Section 75(4) makes it mandatory to grant an opportunity of personal hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated.
  • Merely allowing the petitioner to file a written reply cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a personal hearing.
  • The respondents failed to comply with Sections 75(4) and 75(5) and also violated the principles of natural justice.
  • The department did not provide the relied-upon documents despite relying upon them for framing allegations.
  • The Court relied upon its earlier judgments in M/s. Godavari Commodities Ltd. and NKAS Service Pvt. Ltd., reiterating that personal hearing is a mandatory procedural safeguard before adverse adjudication.
  • Since the adjudication order was passed without following statutory procedure, it could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the High Court:

  • Quashed the adjudication order.
  • Set aside the consequential demand notices.
  • Remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions to:
    • Issue a fresh notice for personal hearing;
    • Supply all relied-upon documents; and
    • Pass a fresh order after complying with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the JGST Act.

Important Clarification

This judgment reinforces that:

  • Personal hearing under Section 75(4) is mandatory whenever an adverse order is proposed.
  • Failure to provide relied-upon documents amounts to denial of a fair opportunity of defence.
  • Even where an appellate remedy exists, the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction when statutory procedure and principles of natural justice are violated.
  • GST adjudication orders passed without mandatory procedural safeguards are liable to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.

Sections Involved

  • Section 67 – Inspection, Search and Seizure
  • Section 74
  • Section 74(1)
  • Section 74(5)
  • Section 74(9)
  • Section 75(4)
  • Section 75(5)
  • Section 107
  • Rule 142 of the JGST Rules
  • Principles of Natural Justice

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785395312_2332compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.