Case Title: Principle Mahendra (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Petition No.: W.P. No. 10113 of 2023 (T-RES)
Relevant Sections: Sections 73(9), 50, 122(2), and 75(4) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017; Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017; Rule 142(5) & (6) of KGST Rules, 2017
Category of Dispute: Opportunity of Hearing under Section 75(4) – Principles of Natural Justice
Date of Judgement: May 24, 2023
Facts of the Case
[Para 1-2] The petitioner challenged an order dated 13.04.2023 passed under Sections 73(9), 50, and 122(2) of the KGST/CGST/IGST Acts, claiming that no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted. The reply filed in Form DRC-06 was rejected for being delayed, despite containing a request for personal hearing.
[Para 3] The Revenue argued that the reply was filed beyond the statutory period and, hence, rightfully disregarded. Further, since the request for personal hearing was embedded in that rejected reply, no hearing needed to be granted.
Questions in Consideration
[Para 5-6]
- Whether a delayed reply containing a request for personal hearing can be ignored, thereby bypassing the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4)?
- Whether denial of personal hearing, on technical grounds, violates the principles of natural justice?
Observations of the Court
[Para 5-6] The Court held that the petitioner, though having filed a delayed reply, explicitly sought a personal hearing in it. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that if a written request for a hearing is made, such an opportunity must be granted. Rejecting the request on the ground that the reply was belated is a hyper-technical approach that defeats the purpose of the provision and violates principles of natural justice.
Judgement of the Court
[Para 7-8] The Court set aside the impugned assessment order (Annexure-A) due to the violation of Section 75(4). It directed the respondent authority to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and consider both the reply and additional legal contentions raised in the writ petition. However, for the lapse in delayed filing, the petitioner was directed to pay ₹10,000 as costs to the department. The petitioner was asked to appear before the authority on 09.06.2023.
Between Fine Lines
- A taxpayer’s right to a personal hearing cannot be denied merely because the reply was filed late.
- Section 75(4) imposes a mandatory obligation on authorities to grant a hearing when requested.
- Procedural lapses like delayed replies do not override substantive rights under the GST law.
- The Court reaffirmed the primacy of natural justice in adjudicatory proceedings.
- However, parties filing delayed replies may still be penalized with costs.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
| None specifically referred in this judgment | – | – | – |
Takeaway
“Right to be Heard Cannot Be Denied on a Technicality”
