The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench dismissed a writ petition filed by Future Consumer Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner stated that they were denied their right to personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act.

Division Bench composed of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi discussed the petitioner’s claim regarding the fulfillment of the procedural requirement for requesting the personal hearing.

“The petitioner did not prefer any appeal within the period of limitation and directly approached this Court through a writ petition only on the ground that he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing as provided under section 75(4) of the GST Act, therefore, the order is unsustainable in law.”

The Court found that Future Consumer Limited did not appear before the tax authority and did not provide any written reply or request for personal hearing in response to the show cause notice issued under section 73(1).

The court stated that “Sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the GST Act says that an opportunity of hearing shall be given where an application is received in writing from the person paying the tax or penalty or any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The trial court held that opportunity to be heard means opportunity for persons to be heard and if no such personal opportunity of hearing is provided then the order is unsustainable and can be set aside.“.

The Court held that the case raised by the petitioners namely M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is different and in that case the petitioner filed a reply but was not given an opportunity of a personal hearing. In this case, the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice nor did he attend the scheduled hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. The court stated that personal hearings must be requested in writing under section 75(4) of the GST Act or at least orally if the party is present.

“When the person, after receiving the notice of presentation of the case, chooses not to appear before the authority to submit a reply or to make a request for a personal hearing, then after giving the final order, he cannot claim that it was refused to him the possibility of being heard. he, therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd.”

The present case relates to the imposition of tax liabilities of Rs. 86,73,188 and interest and penalty of Rs. 1,16,65,438. The petitioner contended that the order was unjust as it denied the right to personal hearing which is provided in section 75(4). The petitioner had cited M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. in which case it was held that a personal hearing must be granted if requested, even if it is not expressly requested in writing. Petitioner argued that they are entitled to an identical remedy because the circumstances are similar.

The court stated that the petitioner did not file any reply or attempt to make any request for hearing, therefore they cannot claim that they were denied an opportunity to be heard. The petition was dismissed and the court ordered that the petitioner has the right to file an appeal before the appellate authority along with the application for condonation of delay.

“The petitioner, if so advised, may file an appeal on the merits with the Appellate Authority together with an application for condonation of delay.”

Case Title: M/S Future Consumer Limited vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Case no: WP-29375-2024