M/S S.P. Singla Constructions (Jv) vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's plea of the order being passed in violation of the statutory requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing could not succeed. The Court based this decision on the "uncontroverted averments" made in the impugned order regarding the opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner's representative had appeared and submitted a reconciliation of discrepancies after a show-cause notice was issued under Section 73(1) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ application. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail any other remedy available in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.P. Singla Constructions (JV), challenged two notifications (No. 56 of 2023 and No. 60 of 2023) issued by the State of Bihar, and an order dated 21.08.2024 along with a corresponding DRC-07 passed under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The State, however, argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard, citing the appearance of their representative, Md. Saiz Aziz, on 18.04.2022, and the submission of a reconciliation of discrepancies. The State also noted that a show-cause notice-cum-DRC-01 was issued under Section 73(1) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, to which the petitioner had replied and requested an adjournment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.08.2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for being passed in breach of the statutory mandate of providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutory requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order. They asserted that this procedural fairness was not complied with. Revenue's (State) Contention: The State contended that the impugned order was passed only after affording an opportunity of hearing. They referred to the averments in the order itself, which indicated that the petitioner's representative appeared on 18.04.2022 and submitted a reconciliation. The State also highlighted that a show-cause notice was issued under Section 73(1) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the petitioner had filed a reply and sought an adjournment, which was granted, thereby fulfilling the principles of natural justice.