No interference with order passed after considering replies and personal hearing

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 >>

• Assessment itself is not a process to penalise assessee for earning undisclosed income – High Court
• Actual use of asset is not the sole test for allowability of depreciation – ITAT
• Object of assessment proceedings is not to find empirically correct solution on every fact issue – HC
• Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny
• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT