M/S Acc Limited (Previously Known As M/S Associated Cement Companies LTD) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated August 21, 2024, and Annexure-P/4A were liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the statutory mandate for a notice of personal hearing, as provided under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The Court reasoned that the failure to grant a personal hearing constitutes a procedural irregularity that vitiates the order. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed in violation of a mandatory procedural requirement, such as granting a personal hearing, is unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on December 20, 2024. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass orders after hearing the assessee within three months from the date of the judgment or within the remaining limitation period, whichever is later.

Facts

M/s ACC Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an assessment order dated August 21, 2024, and related annexures. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST enactments, as they were not granted a personal hearing. The respondents are the Union of India and the State of Bihar, through various revenue authorities. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned order and the subsequent filing of this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated August 21, 2024, is 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 assessment order was passed without granting them a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. They relied on the principle that a statutory provision mandating a personal hearing must be adhered to. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents on this issue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position, if any, was not accepted or was superseded by the court's finding on the petitioner's submission.