S.75(5) Of CGST Act Contemplates A Maximum Of Three Adjournments, Cannot Be Construed As A Minimum Of Three Hearings: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“A perusal of Section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Service...
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,
“A perusal of Section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would show that the said provision merely contemplates that the maximum adjournments shall be given for three times but does not in effect mean that three hearings have to be given
Section 75 of the GST Act is a general provision which provides a framework for determination of tax.
Sub-section (5) thereof stipulates that the proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.
The Petitioner here, aggrieved by a penalty to the tune of Rs. 36,05,299/- for allegedly claiming ITC through fake and fraudulent firms and goods-less invoices, argued that three personal hearings were not given to him before passing of the impugned order.
The High Court however observed that the personal hearing notice was received by the Petitioner and having not availed of such hearing, the Petitioner cannot now be permitted to raise a grievance against the Department.
The Petitioner also submitted that the documents relied upon by the Department for determining penalty were not supplied to him.
The Court accordingly directed the Department to make available to the Petitioner all the Relied Upon documents within two weeks and disposed of the matter.
Appearance: Ms. Shivani Sethi, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Anand Pandey and Ms. Anugya Gupta, Advocates for Respondents
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5684/2025