Shree Pejawara Adhokshaja Mutt vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Pejawara Adhokshaja Mutt, a public religious trust, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 06.09.2022, bearing reference No.ACCT/LGSTO280/ASMT-15/15/2022-23, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Udupi. The petitioner's primary grievance was the alleged lack of opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. The petitioner contended that a Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.08.2022, and the impugned order was passed on 06.09.2022, which they argued did not provide adequate statutory opportunity. The respondent's counsel was unable to place on record proof of due service of notice and the consequent opportunity provided to the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the Assessment Order dated 06.09.2022 was passed without providing the petitioner with adequate statutory opportunity. The Court noted that the respondent's counsel was unable to place on record proof of due service of notice and the consequent opportunity afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance on this short ground. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order. However, the proceedings were restored, with the observation that all questions were left open to be considered by the Assessing Officer. This means the Assessing Officer will have to issue a fresh notice and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before passing a fresh assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessment Order dated 06.09.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Udupi, is liable to be quashed for want of statutory opportunity to the petitioner, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST law. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed hastily, within a short period of 19 days from the issuance of the Show Cause Notice (18.08.2022 to 06.09.2022), thereby violating the statutory requirement of providing due opportunity. The petitioner relied on the principle that a fair hearing is a fundamental aspect of administrative justice. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, could not produce any record to demonstrate that due notice was served upon the petitioner and that they were afforded a proper opportunity to present their case before the impugned assessment order was passed.