Shashi Kant Gaur, (Proprietor Of Hitech Petronergy) vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court found that the revenue authorities had admitted non-compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. Based on this admitted fact, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for interference. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 30.12.2023, 30.03.2024, and 29.04.2024 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority from the defective stage, specifically for compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the authorities and for the proceedings to be completed within four months, emphasizing the need for due opportunity of hearing and adherence to procedural aspects, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Shashi Kant Gaur, proprietor of Hitech Petronergy, challenged orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and the Additional Commissioner (Appeal). The first order, dated 30.12.2023, under Section 74 of the CGST Act, held the petitioner liable for Rs. 5,85,42,178/- for the financial year 2017-18. The second order, dated 30.03.2024, by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), upheld a revised liability of Rs. 6,68,43,842/- for the same period. A third order, dated 29.04.2024, under Section 73 of the CGST Act, imposed a liability of Rs. 2,66,36,480/- for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner's challenge was primarily based on the grounds of limitation and non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities were barred by limitation under the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether there was compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the revenue authorities? The petitioner contended that the proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed time limits and that the revenue authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard as stipulated in Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The revenue authorities, through the Government Pleader, submitted instructions regarding the compliance with Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.