Factual Background 

In the Matter at hand Jupiter Exports v. Commr. of GST In a case, Jupiter Exports, the petitioner, contested the Commissioner of GST’s ruling because it flagrantly flouted the natural justice principle. The petitioner filed a plea to set aside a demand order under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, making a total demand of Rs. 6,67,74,062 for the tax period from April 2018 to March 2019. This demand included the tax amount, interest, and penalty. Because the petitioner was not given a chance for a personal hearing before the judgement was made, the petitioner claimed that the impugned order was made in a flagrant breach of natural justice principles. The petitioner also cited a directive from the Indian government’s Ministry of Finance, which called for at least three opportunities for in-person hearings. The respondent maintained that the challenged order should be regarded as similar to a personal hearing since it was made after taking into account the petitioner’s written response and telephone discussion. The respondent stated that because the petitioner had another legal option to contest the contested order by filing an appeal, the writ petition should not be considered.

Conclusion of Court 

The challenged judgement was overturned by a division bench of the Delhi High Court Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, who reasoned that it had been given in breach of the natural justice principles as well as Sections 75(4) and 75(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The Court determined that when officials receive a written request, they are required by Section 75 of the CGST Act to provide tax-charged people with an opportunity to be heard. When considering adverse judgements made against the person, this hearing is required. The Legislature integrated the principles of natural justice into the act, making it difficult for the authorities to claim that the hearing was not required.

The Court, therefore overturned the contested demand notice and remanded the case so that the respondent might issue a new ruling after giving the petitioner a fair chance to be heard. The respondent was also given a cost order by the court for Rs 5,000, which had a four-week deposit deadline with the District State Legal Services Authority.

CASE NAME – Jupiter Exports v. Commr. of GST, W.P. (C) 6673 of 2021