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 >>
High Court denied pre-arrest bail to accused of fake ITC utilisation on possibility of misusing the concession of pre arrest…
Return could not be said to be non est for non e-verification when AO had been taken due cognizance of…
Section 43CB read with ICDS-III is applicable to contractors and not real estate developers - ITAT In a recent judgment,…
Expenses incurred on ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act – ITAT Delhi In a…
Compliance history of supplier could not be used to invalidate the genuine business transactions of the buyer especially when the…
Reassessment quashed as AO issued u/s 148 instead of 153C as reopening was based on incriminating material found during search…