.){kind=link}
Case Title: M/s Future Consumer Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 29375 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 22 October 2024
Category: Demand under Section 73 – Natural Justice / Personal Hearing
Relevant Sections: Sections 73 and 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–8)
M/s Future Consumer Limited, a food-led FMCG company registered under GST in Madhya Pradesh, was served a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 (26.06.2023) for discrepancies in returns. Upon failure to respond, the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Indore, issued a show-cause notice under Section 73(1) on 24.08.2023, fixing hearing for 25.09.2023. The petitioner neither appeared nor filed a reply, resulting in a final order dated 30.10.2023 creating a tax demand of ₹86,73,188 plus interest and penalty totalling ₹1,16,65,438.
Instead of filing an appeal under the GST Act, the petitioner directly approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order, alleging violation of Section 75(4) for lack of personal hearing and relying on the Division Bench decision in M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (WP No. 13618/2023).
Questions for Determination
Whether the impugned order under Section 73 was vitiated for want of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, even though the petitioner neither filed a reply nor appeared before the authority.
Court’s Observations (Paras 9–10)
The Bench observed that Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing only when a request is made in writing or when any adverse decision is contemplated. The Technosys Security ruling applied where the assessee had submitted a reply but was denied oral hearing. Here, the petitioner failed to file any reply or even appear.
The Court clarified that a taxpayer cannot claim violation of natural justice when they voluntarily abstain from participating in proceedings. The right to personal hearing is not automatic; it must be sought either in writing or orally upon appearance. Having remained absent, the petitioner cannot now allege denial of hearing.
Judgment (Para 11)
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the case was distinguishable from Technosys Security Systems Pvt. Ltd. and that the petitioner’s inaction disentitled it from relief. However, liberty was granted to file an appeal on merits along with a delay-condonation application before the appellate authority.
Table – Cases Referred
| Case | Court & Citation | Issue | Verdict / Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (WP No.13618/2023) | MP High Court | Denial of personal hearing under Sec.75(4) despite reply filed | Order quashed; remand for personal hearing |
| M/s Jai Vindhya Udyog v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No.190/2023) | Allahabad High Court | Violation of Sec.74 hearing requirement | Order set aside; remitted for rehearing |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reinforces that the right to personal hearing is conditional, not automatic. Businesses must respond to show-cause notices and explicitly request hearings to safeguard procedural rights. Passive inaction cannot later be remedied through writ jurisdiction; the statutory appellate route remains the correct remedy.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”