M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). They also challenged a Notification dated 31.03.2023 extending the time limit for orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act and an order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST, Dibrugarh (Respondent No. 8). The petitioner stated that the grievance regarding input tax credit was largely resolved by the insertion of sub-section (5) into Section 16 of the CGST Act by the Finance Act, 2024. However, the impugned order concerning other demands was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner requested the matter be remitted for a fresh decision after providing a hearing.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST, Dibrugarh (Respondent No. 8), was to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that this order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The respondents also agreed to this course of action. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 8 to decide the issue afresh. The decision is to be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, and after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The authority was directed to pass the fresh order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the primary relief sought by the petitioner regarding the procedural defect was granted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST, Dibrugarh, is liable to be set aside for being passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of principles of natural justice and relevant provisions of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that while the primary grievance regarding Section 16(4) of the CGST Act was addressed by the amendment to Section 16(5), the order dated 22.12.2023 was passed without affording them a proper hearing. They relied on the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST Act that mandate an opportunity of being heard before adverse orders are passed. They requested a remand for a fresh decision. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their learned counsel, agreed that the matter could be remitted back to the concerned authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act, including the newly introduced amendment in Section 16(5).
Sections Cited
Section 16(4), Section 16(5), Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010025512025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/913/2025 M/S A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE- MR. JANARDAN MANI TRIPATHI, ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS- MANAV KALYAN NAMGHAR ROAD, TINSUKIA, ASSAM-786125. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVENUE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. 3:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT GROUND FLOOR F-BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:GST COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON
Page No.# 2/4 MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. 5:CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-110001. 6:GST NETWORK REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. 7:COMMISSIONER / JOINT SECRETARY IN THE BOARD CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-110001. 8:ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST DIBRUGARH P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003 For the petitioner : Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocate (through video-conferencing) Mr. H. Betala, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Keyal, S.C., GST Mr. B. Gogoi, S.C., Finance
Page No.# 3/4 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 07-03-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner essentially challenging the validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as “CGST Act”). The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), whereby the time limit was extended for passing the orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.8 under the provisions of the CGST Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that with the insertion of sub-section (5) in Section 16 of the CGST Act by way of the Finance Act, 2024, the grievance of the petitioner regarding availment of input tax credit is more or less resolved. However, it is submitted that the impugned order in respect of certain other demands had been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that if this Court deems it appropriate then the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned for deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to it in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also submitted that he is already in receipt of instructions from the Department and that the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act, including the new amendment introduced in Page No.# 4/4 Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.8 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.8 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.