Brahmaputra Tele Productions PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, imposing tax, interest, and penalty for the Financial Year 2018-2019, could not be sustained in law. The Court found that the order was passed beyond the period of limitation stipulated in Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It noted that for the Financial Year 2018-19, the period of limitation under Section 73(10) of the State Act ended on 31.12.2023, and the impugned order was passed on 30.04.2024. The Court also observed that the State of Assam had not issued any pari materia notification for the period on or after 1st April, 2024, to extend the limitation. Furthermore, the Court found that the order was not drawn up in terms with Section 75(6) of the State Act and was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a mandate under Section 75(4) of the State Act. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed in violation of the prescribed limitation period and procedural requirements under the GST Act is unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned order.

Facts

The petitioner, Brahmaputra Tele Productions Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 30.04.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, GST, Circle-2, imposing a tax demand of Rs. 36,86,748/- along with interest and penalty for the Financial Year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the order was not passed in accordance with Section 73 and Section 75 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the order was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the State Act, as no notification under Section 168A of the State Act had been issued to extend the limitation period. The petitioner also pointed out that a similar central notification relied upon by the revenue had been set aside by this Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, imposing tax, interest, and penalty for the Financial Year 2018-2019, was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in the absence of a notification under Section 168A of the State Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was time-barred as the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the State Act for the Financial Year 2018-19 ended on 31.12.2023. They contended that the Central Government's Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, which might have extended the limitation, was not applicable to the State Act and had already been set aside by this Court in the case of Barkataki Print and Media Services and Another Vs. Union of India and Others. The petitioner also argued that the order was not in consonance with Section 75 of the State Act, particularly regarding its format and the lack of an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State respondents regarding the limitation period or the procedural compliance with Section 75.