M/S Sushee Infra And Mining LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 28.01.2024, passed by the respondent No.4 (Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-B), was to be set aside. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of an opportunity of hearing was valid. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the respondent No.4. The authority was directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, and importantly, after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The decision on the merits of the case, including the interpretation of Section 16(4) and the impact of the amendment, was left to the respondent No.4 to determine in the fresh adjudication. The Court directed that this fresh decision be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Facts

M/s Sushee Infra and Mining Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging the validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner also sought to quash a Notification dated 31.03.2023 extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act and an order dated 28.01.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-B (respondent No.4). The petitioner contended that while the insertion of sub-section (5) in Section 16 of the CGST Act by the Finance Act, 2024, addressed their input tax credit grievance, the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The revenue, represented by Mr. B. Gogoi, agreed that the matter could be remitted for fresh decision, considering the new amendment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.01.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-B, is liable to be set aside for having been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that although the grievance regarding Section 16(4) of the CGST Act was largely resolved by the insertion of sub-section (5) via the Finance Act, 2024, the specific order dated 28.01.2024 was passed without affording them a proper hearing. Therefore, they requested the Court to remit the matter for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that it had received instructions from the Department and agreed with the petitioner's submission that the matter should be remitted back to the authority concerned for a fresh decision, taking into account the new amendment to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.