Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs. 20,000 Cost On Joint Commissioner SGST For Not Giving Opportunity Of Hearing
Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs. 20,000 Cost On Joint Commissioner SGST For Not Giving Opportunity Of Hearing
The Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 Cost on Joint Commissioner, SGST for passing the order passed without giving hearing opportunity to assessee.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Kshitij Shailendra has observed that conduct on the part of the officers of the State wherein besides denying opportunity of personal hearing in the show cause notice by indicating ‘NA’ in the column pertaining to date of personal hearing, despite specific prayer made for providing opportunity of hearing in reply, the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and supply of potato flakes besides other items. A show cause notice for the period July 2017 to March 2018, proposing to classify the product in question i.e. potato flakes under tariff heading 2005-2000 instead of 1105-2000 was issued. In the notice, the date by which the reply was required to be submitted was indicated as 19.08.2024 and in column pertaining to date of personal hearing ‘NA’ was indicated and the same was the position pertaining to column pertaining to time of personal hearing order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing.
A reply to the notice was filed by the petitioner contesting the allegations. In the reply, a specific prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner that no adverse order to the prejudice of the petitioner be passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
The court allowed the writ petition. The order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Commissioner SGST for passing a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Case Details
Case Title: Merino Industries Ltd. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case No.: Writ Tax No. - 1406 Of 2025
Date: 2.4.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Anil Prakash Mathur
Counsel For Respondent: Ankur Agarwal
Read More: Customs Dept. Not Justified In Detaining Personal Gold Jewellery: Delhi High Court
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
