Raymond Lifestyle Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the assessment order and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.11.2023 were passed in violation of the statutory mandate for providing a notice of personal hearing. Consequently, these orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 15.01.2025. If the petitioner appears on the notified date or on an adjourned date, the Assessing Officer is directed to pass fresh 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 statutory requirement for a personal hearing must be adhered to, and non-compliance renders the consequential orders liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Raymond Lifestyle Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.11.2023. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed without granting a personal hearing, which is a statutory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The respondents are the Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, State of Bihar, and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Special Circle. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.11.2023 are liable to be set aside for violation of the statutory mandate of providing a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without affording them a personal hearing, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner, vitiates the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue or the State in response to the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of personal hearing. The judgment notes that contentions raised on limitation were answered against the petitioner in a previous case, M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors., dated 27.11.2024, but this does not directly address the personal hearing issue.