Binod Kumar Dwivedi ORDER
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. With the consent, finally heard.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
3. This common order will decide both the writ petitions wherein the petitioners have called in question the show cause notices and the impugned orders whereby the tax and interest and penalty have been imposed on the petitioners.
4. The singular point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision making process adopted by the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate ingrained in Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Goods and Services Tax (Act).
5. To elaborate, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 13618 of 2023. The scrutiny was concluded on 6.5.2022. A show cause notice dated 7.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) was issued, wherein the amount determined was Rs. 7.37 crores. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 21.1.2023. In the final order dated 17.2.2023 (Annexure P-6), the amount of tax, interest and penalty is quantified as Rs. 9.76 crores. It is pointed out that in the other connected matter, the dates are almost same. However, the amount mentioned in the show cause notice is Rs. 1.18 crores, whereas final tax, interest and penalty imposed is to the tune of Rs. 14.56 crores.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a plain reading of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Act makes it clear that providing opportunity of hearing is a mandatory requirement. The said requirement needs to be fulfilled in twin situations :-
(I) When a specific request is received in writing from a person chargeable with tax or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the use of word 'or' is very important in this statutory provision. Admittedly, in the present cases, the adverse decision was contemplated on said contemplation is translated into reality, when tax was levied on the petitioners. In that event whether or not the petitioners specifically opted/demanded for a personal hearing, a personal hearing ought to have been provided. In absence thereof, the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate mentioned in Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Act are grossly violated.
(II) In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in MANU/MP/1519/2023 : (2023) 4 Centax 198 (M.P.) (19.01.2023) (Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India), the judgment of Gujarat High Court reported in MANU/GJ/2790/2022 : 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 38(Guj.) (23.06.2022) (Graziano Trasmissioni India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat) and lastly on a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in MANU/UP/2806/2023 : 2023 (8) TMI 1091, Allahabad High Court, (M/s. BL Pahariya Medical Store Vs. State of U.P. and another).
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners have not projected requirement of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Act in a proper manner........