Korrapathi Janardhana Naidu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the impugned order of assessment was liable to be set aside. It found that while the petitioner had submitted a reply to the notice, the Assessing Authority, in its order, merely stated that the objections were not considered and proceeded to determine the liability as proposed. The Court emphasized that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates an opportunity of hearing when a request is received or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The Court found that the Assessing Authority breached this provision and also violated the principles of natural justice by failing to afford a personal hearing. Consequently, the revenue's contention regarding the availability of an alternative remedy was rejected. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ratio is that failure to provide a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, renders an assessment order void and violates principles of natural justice, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.
Facts
The petitioner, a registered civil contractor, challenged an order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Nellore, dated 21.09.2020. This order determined the petitioner's tax liability, penalty, and interest at Rs. 28,31,806/-. The assessment followed a notice dated 23.01.2020 and the petitioner's reply dated 23.07.2020. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsustainable due to the non-issuance of a personal hearing notice before its passing, violating Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The revenue argued that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was available, making the writ petition maintainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order of assessment is liable to be set aside on the ground that no notice of personal hearing was issued before resorting to the impugned action, in violation of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The non-adherence to the mandatory provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, is fatal to the assessment order. Revenue's Contention: In view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the present Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order No.ZH3709200D88169, dated 21.09.2020, determining the tax liability, penalty and interest as Rs.28,31,806/-.
The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petition is, whether the impugned order of assessment is liable to be set aside on the ground that no notice of personal hearing was issued before resorting to the impugned action ?
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, non-adherence to the mandatory provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act, 2017’) is fatal to the case of the respond
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.