Niranjan Kumar Mishra, Proprietor M/S Vikramshia Trading Company vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the assessment order and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2023 were passed in violation of the statutory mandate for a notice of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 15.01.2025. If the petitioner appears on the notified date or on a date subsequently adjourned, the Assessing Officer is to hear the assessee and pass orders within three months from the date of the judgment or within the remaining limitation period, whichever is later. The ratio decidendi is that a personal hearing is a mandatory procedural requirement, and its omission vitiates the order.
Facts
The petitioner, Niranjan Kumar Mishra, proprietor of M/s Vikramshila Trading Company, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2023. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The respondents are the Union of India, the State of Bihar, and the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Munger Bhagalpur. The court noted that contentions regarding limitation were addressed in a previous judgment, M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors., dated 27.11.2024.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2023 are liable to be set aside for violation of the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording a personal hearing, which is a statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner, renders the order invalid. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the violation of Section 75(4). However, the court's decision implies that the respondents did not successfully counter the petitioner's claim on this point.
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.9205 of 2024 ====================================================== Niranjan Kumar Mishra, Proprietor M/s Vikramshila Trading Company S/O Sitaram Mishra resident of Auranga, Rangaon, P.O. and P.S. Tarapur, Munger, Bihar- 813221. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Munger Bhagalpur, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aman Raja, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 18-12-2024 The
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.