treeviewIn a major decision, the Madras High Court ruled that Sections 73(9), 74(9), and 76(3) of the GST Act do not need the submission of a reply to the show-cause notice in form GST-DRC-06; the Madras High Court also ruled that the reply submitted by postal service would be accepted as legitimate.
On January 8, 2022, Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited provided a physical representation, which was received on January 10, 2022. The petitioner was not allowed to be heard.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar stated that “Given non-consideration, the petitioner denied his right to opportunity, and principles of natural justice,” noting that the department should have referred to it, evaluated it, and then given the petitioner a chance to explain.
The Court also declared that the Department’s main complaint is that the postal or physical response was disregarded since it wasn’t transmitted via the portal.
“To hear the petitioner’s objections, he demands a personal hearing. An incorrect refund is the subject of this lawsuit. In such cases, a personal hearing should be held, the papers should be taken into consideration, and the Department should then go forward. The Department is required to provide the petitioner with a chance for a personal hearing in light of the above, hear any objections, and review the provided papers and justifications. According to the Department, the second respondent has now received the petitioner’s file, the Court stated.
In granting the petition, the court stated, “Therefore, this Court not delving into the merits argued by both the petitioner and the respondents, finds the petitioner had sent a full submission dated 07.01.2022 was received by the respondents on 10.01.2022 and which is not disputed. The Department’s main criticism is that the postal or physical response was disregarded because it wasn’t delivered via the portal. So that his concerns may be heard, the petitioner deserves a personal hearing. Incorrect refund is the issue in this scenario. It would be proper to hold a personal hearing in these situations, evaluate the papers, and then rule on the case. This issue relates to an incorrect refund. In such cases, it would be appropriate to hold a personal hearing, evaluate the materials, and then go forward with the Department. In light of this, the Department will provide the petitioner the chance for a personal hearing, listen to the concerns, and review the submitted papers and justifications. The Department claims that the second respondent now has the petitioner’s file.