M/S Tulshyan Electricals vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tulsyan Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Barpeta Road-1, Guwahati Zone-B. This order was passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner's grievance was that although they had uploaded their reply to the show-cause notice online on 20.12.2023, no date for a personal hearing was fixed. Consequently, the assessing authority passed the impugned order without considering the petitioner's reply.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, was not sustainable. The Court observed that the order of attachment to determination of tax did not inform the petitioner that a specific prayer for personal hearing was required. Therefore, the non-granting of an opportunity for personal hearing was found unacceptable. Furthermore, even if the Assessing Officer decided against granting a personal hearing, they had a duty to consider the show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner, which did not appear to have been done. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the same authority for a fresh decision. The authority was directed to fix a date for a personal hearing and communicate it to the petitioner via email. The respondents were granted liberty to apply for modification of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and non-granting of a personal hearing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice online. However, the assessing authority passed the order without fixing a date for personal hearing and without considering the submitted reply. This violated their right to be heard. Revenue's contention: The learned standing counsel for the State GST submitted that while the petitioner had submitted a reply on 20.12.2023, they did not specifically pray for a personal hearing. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to decide the matter based on the available information. The revenue opposed the prayer for interference with the impugned order.