M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court, in light of its order dated 21.04.2025 passed in CWJC 14239 of 2024 (M/S Agarwal Tube Company vs. The Union of India and others), set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2021. Consequently, the present writ petition (CWJC No. 1225 of 2025) was disposed of in terms of the cited decision. The reasoning in the cited decision, which led to the setting aside of the assessment order, would likely involve the violation of Section 73(8) of the GST Act and principles of natural justice due to the insufficient notice period. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the other issues raised by the petitioner, such as the rectified demand order, the appellate order, or the refund of pre-deposit, but the disposal of the entire petition in terms of the cited decision implies that the relief sought concerning the assessment order was granted, and potentially other related reliefs were also addressed or rendered moot by the setting aside of the initial order. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed in violation of the mandatory notice period prescribed under Section 73(8) of the GST Act is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited, challenged assessment orders and a rectified demand order issued by the State Tax authorities. The primary grievance was that the assessment order dated 23.02.2021 was issued in violation of Section 73(8) of the GST Act, which mandates a minimum 30-day notice period. The petitioner received the DRC-01 notice on 14.02.2021 and the assessment order was issued just nine days later, on 23.02.2021. Subsequently, a rectified demand order (DRC-08) dated 08.04.2021 imposed a demand of Rs. 92,68,758/-. The petitioner also challenged an appellate order (APL02) dated 08.04.2023, which rejected their appeal for the financial year 2019-20 on grounds of non-filing of a certified copy within time, despite an amendment to the CGST Act in December 2022 removing this mandatory requirement. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and refund of pre-deposit paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 23.02.2021 is bad in law for violating Section 73(8) of the GST Act by not providing the mandatory minimum 30 days' notice period after issuing DRC-01 on 14.02.2021. The petitioner argued that the issuance of the assessment order merely nine days after the notice violated principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement. The revenue's arguments are not recorded. 2. Whether the rectified demand order dated 08.04.2021, imposing a demand of Rs. 92,68,758/-, is bad in law as it is a rectification of an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 73(8) of the BGST Act. The petitioner contended that this rectification perpetuated the illegality of the original order. The revenue's arguments are not recorded. 3. Whether the appellate order dated 08.04.2023, rejecting the petitioner's appeal for the financial year 2019-20 on the grounds of non-filing of a certified copy within time, is bad in law, considering the amendment to the CGST Act in December 2022 that repealed this mandatory requirement. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority ignored this amendment. The revenue's arguments are not recorded. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 9,47,176/- paid as pre-deposit for filing the appeal for FY 2019-20, as per Section 107(6)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.