Vinod Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the limitation period for assessment proceedings is extended to the extent of periods exempted by the Supreme Court, but only up to the extent notified by government notifications. The Court found no reason to interfere with the orders on the ground of limitation. Regarding the procedure for scrutiny, the Court held that Section 73 is a standalone provision that can be invoked independently when it appears to the Proper Officer that there is tax escapement, erroneous refund, or wrongful claim of input tax credit. It is not mandatory for every Section 73 proceeding to be preceded by a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 under Section 61; a notice under Section 73 itself suffices. However, the Court emphasized that Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, even without a specific request from the assessee. Consequently, assessment orders passed without granting a personal hearing were set aside and remitted to the respective Assessing Officers for affording an opportunity of personal hearing. For cases where a personal hearing was afforded, the Court found no reason to interfere and rejected the writ petitions.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited and others, filed writ petitions before the Patna High Court challenging orders passed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The petitions raised various grounds, including issues related to limitation periods for assessment, the procedure for scrutiny of returns under Section 61 and Rule 99, and the requirement of personal hearings under Section 75(4). The revenue authorities, represented by the State of Bihar and the Union of India, were the respondents. The tax periods in dispute were not explicitly stated for all cases but included years like 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 in the context of limitation. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of assessment orders passed without adhering to procedural requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the limitation period for assessment proceedings under the GST Act stands extended due to the Supreme Court's orders on the COVID-19 period, and if so, to what extent, considering any notifications issued by the respective governments? (Turning on Section 73 and relevant Supreme Court orders). 2. Whether proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act can be initiated without first undertaking a scrutiny of returns under Section 61 and issuing a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 as prescribed by Rule 99, and considering the assessee's explanation? 3. Whether an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted under Section 75(4) of the GST Act when a reply has been submitted to a notice issued under Section 73 and an adverse decision is contemplated, even if no specific request for a hearing is made by the assessee? Petitioner's contentions: - The limitation period should be extended as per Supreme Court orders, and any government notifications extending it should be considered. - Proceedings under Section 73 must be preceded by scrutiny under Section 61 and a notice in Form GST ASMT-10, with consideration of the assessee's explanation. - Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of a specific request. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on these points, but implicitly defends the orders passed.