Ultratech Cement Limited (Erstwhile Century Textiles And Industries Limited) vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned appellate order dated 04.05.2024, the assessment order, and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.06.2023 are set aside due to the violation of the statutory mandate for a notice of personal hearing. The Court reasoned that the absence of a personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the GST enactments, vitiates the assessment proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness, including the right to a personal hearing, is a fundamental aspect of tax administration under GST, and its violation warrants setting aside the consequential orders. The Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to appear on 15.01.2025. The Assessing Officer is to pass orders within three months from the date of the judgment or within the remaining limitation period, whichever is later, after hearing the assessee. The issue of limitation, as argued by the petitioner, was addressed by referring to a previous judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, UltraTech Cement Limited, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders and an appellate order under the GST regime. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. Furthermore, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay. The impugned orders included an appellate order dated 04.05.2024, an assessment order, and an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.06.2023. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders due to the alleged violation of the statutory requirement for a notice of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order is liable to be set aside for violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments? 2. Whether the appellate order, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, is sustainable? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without affording a personal hearing, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. They also argued that the dismissal of their appeal on grounds of delay was improper, especially in light of the procedural violation in the assessment stage. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue or state in response to the petitioner's arguments regarding the personal hearing or the dismissal of the appeal on delay. The judgment notes that the contentions raised on limitation were answered in a previous case, M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors.