Case Details: Future Consumer Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) 27 Centax 356 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vivek Rusia & Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
- Shri Aditya Goyal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Anand Soni, Additional Adv. General for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was issued a notice identifying discrepancies in its GST returns and was directed to provide an explanation. Despite the opportunity, the petitioner neither responded nor appeared before the tax authority. A subsequent show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act was issued, requiring the petitioner to present its case, but no response or appearance was made. Consequently, a final order was passed, determining the tax liability. Instead of availing the appellate remedy, the petitioner directly approached the High Court, contending that the adjudicating authority had failed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act is available only if the assessee makes a written request or appears and seeks an oral hearing. Mere non-appearance after receiving a show-cause notice disentitles the assessee from later claiming denial of a hearing. Since the petitioner neither filed a reply nor participated in the proceedings, the Court found no procedural lapse by the tax authority. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority along with a condonation application for the delay.
List of Cases Cited
- Jai Vindhya Udyog v. State of U.P. — Writ Tax No.190 of 2023 — Referred [Para 05]
- Technosys Security System Private Limited v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes — (Writ Petition No. 13618 of 2023) – Division Bench of MP High Court order dated 05.12.2023 — Distinguished [Para 10]
