Siemens Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the assessment order and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 were passed in violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with a direction for the assessee to appear on 15.01.2025. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh orders within three months from the date of the judgment or within the remaining limitation period, whichever is later, after hearing the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that a mandatory procedural requirement like a personal hearing cannot be ignored by the tax authorities, and non-compliance warrants setting aside of the order and remittal.
Facts
Siemens Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an assessment order and an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing, violating statutory provisions. The respondents are the Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, State of Bihar, Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, and Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The court noted that contentions regarding limitation were previously addressed in a related case, M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors., decided on 27.11.2024.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order and the order in Form GST DRC-07 were liable to be set aside for violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording them a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. This procedural lapse vitiates the order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue side regarding the violation of the personal hearing. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position, if any, did not outweigh the petitioner's claim on this procedural ground.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9212 of 2024 ====================================================== Siemens Limited a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 3/11 Matrichhaya, Yaduvansh Path, District Patna- 800001, Bihar through its authorised signatory Aryaman Sinha (Male aged about 26 years) son of Shri. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, resident of Village Sara Mohamed, P.O.- Sara Mohanpur, P.S.- Sadar, Sara Mahamed, Darbhanga Bihar- 846007. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, through its Secretary having its office at 47 B, CBIC, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001. 3. State of Bihar, through Commissioner of State Tax, Bihar, Patna having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Patna.
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, having its office at Central Revenue Building, (Annexe), Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Special Circle, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D
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 Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.