No interference with order passed after considering replies filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing – High Court
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that since the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the replies filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing, there is no scope for High Court to interfere with it.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4531 (2025) (04) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, the assessee has filed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise and demand notice in Form GST DRC-07.
The petitioner submitted that in this case, initially, the show cause notice was issued by the respondent, for which the petitioner had filed their replies on three occasiosn. According to the petitioner, the said replies were not at all considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order, which was a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
On the contrary, the Revenue reply, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent had vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioner and submitted that the respondent had duly considered the reply filed by the petitioner while passing the impugned order.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in the case on hand, the main grievance of the petitioner was that the replies filed by them were not at all considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order.
However, the Hon’ble High Court noted that upon perusal of the said impugned order, it appeared that though in one place it had been stated that no reply was filed, in the discussion portion, the replies filed by the petitioner, along with all the relevant documents, were duly considered by the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court found no merits in the submissions made by the petitioner.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court opined that since the impugned order came to be passed after due consideration of the replies filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, there was no scope for the Court to interfere with the said impugned order passed by the respondent.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
In an order rejecting stay of income tax demand there should be a recital of the merits whether it is…
CBDT has extended the due date for furnishing Return of Income for Assessment Year 2026-27 (FY 2025-26) in respect of…
Denying the accumulation of u/s 11(2) merely on grounds of a procedural delay in filing Form No. 10 is unsustainable…
Engagement of 05 Young Professionals CAs in the Office of Central Registrar of Cooperative Society on contractual basis The office…
Immunity u/s 270AA(2) in respect of a single transaction can not be denied to one assessee when the penalty was…
ITAT deleted addition u/s 69A towards jewellery found in search in view of Indian traditions, CBDT Instruction and High Court…