M/S Gudari Sah Ramanad Sah vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders should be set aside. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by the respondents, particularly the learned AC to GP-7, who conceded that the matter could be remanded for passing an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court noted the petitioner's undertaking to file its reply/response within four weeks. The respondent authority was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner if an adverse order was contemplated, and thereafter, pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of hearing. The principle of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and the requirement of valid service of notice, formed the basis for this decision, leading to the quashing of the ex parte order. The issue of whether uploading notices on the GST portal constituted valid service was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to set aside the order due to lack of proper service and hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gudari Sah Ramanad Sah, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Assessment Order dated December 29, 2023, and a demand raised in Form DRC-07 dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan. These orders pertained to the Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, and without proper service of notice as required by Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that mere uploading of notices on the GST portal did not constitute valid service.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte Assessment Order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principle of natural justice due to the absence of an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the said assessment order and the demand raised in Form DRC-07 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner firm was not served with any show cause notice or the impugned order by a valid mode of service as contemplated under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that there was no proper service of notice under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017, and that an opportunity of hearing, as mandatorily required under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, was not provided. They further contended that mere uploading of notices on the GST portal cannot be considered a valid mode of service. The petitioner relied on the statements made in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ application, noting that the respondents' counter affidavit did not specifically deny these assertions. Revenue's Arguments: The learned AC to GP-7, representing the State, submitted that having regard to the pleadings on record, the impugned orders could be set aside and the matter remanded to the Proper Officer for passing an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.