The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench dismissed a writ petition filed by Future Consumer Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioner stated that they were denied the right to a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act.

The division bench consisting of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi discussed the petitioner’s request for fulfillment of formal requirements for requesting a personal hearing.

“The petitioner did not prefer any appeal within the period of limitation and directly approached the Court through a writ petition merely on the ground that the facility of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act has not been given to him, therefore the order is unsustainable in law.”

The Court found that Future Consumer Limited did not appear before the Revenue and did not file a written reply or request for a personal hearing in response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1).

The court stated that “Sub-section (4) of Section 75 of GST Act states that an opportunity of being heard shall be given if a written request is received from the person liable to pay the tax or penalty or if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The Division Bench of this Court has held that the opportunity to be heard means the opportunity of persons to be heard and if such personal opportunity of being heard is not provided, the order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside“.

The court found that the case cited by the petitioners, i.e. M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is different and in that case the petitioner had filed a reply but was not given a chance for a personal hearing. In this case, the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice or attend the scheduled hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. The court stated that personal hearings must be requested in writing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act or at least orally if the party is present.

“When the person, after receiving the notice of the merits, chooses not to appear before the authority to file a reply or to make a request for a personal hearing, he cannot, after being notified of the final decision, claim that an opportunity to be heard itself has been denied. the case of the petitioner is therefore distinguishable from the case of M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd.”

The present case deals with imposition of tax liabilities of Rs. 86,73,188 and interest and penalties of Rs. 1,16,65,438. The petitioner submitted that the decision is unfair because it denied the right to a personal hearing, which is provided for in section 75(4). The petitioner had pleaded M/s Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. cases where it was held that personal hearing must be granted if requested, even if not expressly requested in writing. The petitioner argued that they were entitled to identical relief because the circumstances were similar.

The court stated that no response was filed by the petitioner or an attempt made any request for hearing, therefore they cannot claim that they were denied the opportunity to be heard. The petition was dismissed and the court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to appeal to the appellate authority along with seeking condonation of delay.

“The petitioner may, if notified, submit a substantive appeal to the Appellate Authority together with an application for condonation of delay.”

Case Title: M/S Future Consumer Limited vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Case number: WP-29375-2024