Mother INDIA Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the limitation period for assessment is extended by the periods excluded by the Supreme Court and further by any notifications issued by the respective governments. It found no reason to interfere with orders on the ground of limitation. Regarding the procedure for Section 73 proceedings, the Court held that Section 73 is a standalone provision and does not mandate that it must be preceded by scrutiny under Section 61 and Form-GST ASMT-10. A proceeding under Section 73 itself requires a notice. However, the Court found that in several writ petitions (CWJC No. 4180 of 2024 and others), assessment orders were passed without granting a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4). Therefore, these orders were set aside due to the violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing. The matters were remitted to the respective Assessing Officers to issue a notice for affording an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass fresh orders within three months or the remaining limitation period. For petitions where a personal hearing was afforded (CWJC No. 4505/2024 and others), the Court found no reason to interfere and rejected those petitions. The ratio is that while procedural steps like scrutiny are not strictly mandatory before Section 73 proceedings, the statutory right to a personal hearing under Section 75(4) when an adverse decision is contemplated is absolute and its violation warrants setting aside the order and remanding the matter.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited, Vinod Singh, M/s Anand Consultant, Technoculture Building Centre Pvt Ltd, M/s Devendra Prasad, M/s Shankar Traders, M/s Nirav Enterprises, M/s Harilal Ventures Private Limited, and others, filed writ petitions before the Patna High Court. The petitions challenged various orders passed by GST authorities. Key issues raised by the petitioners pertained to the limitation period for assessment, the procedure for scrutiny of returns under Section 61 and Rule 99, and the mandatory requirement of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) before passing adverse orders. The revenue authorities were the respondents, including the State of Bihar and the Union of India, represented by various tax departments and officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the limitation period for issuing assessment orders under the GST Act is extended by the period excluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders, and further by any notifications issued by the respective governments? (Question of law) 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, followed by consideration of the assessee's explanation? (Question of mixed law and fact) 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 without a specific request for a hearing? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: - The limitation period should be extended as per the Supreme Court's orders and government notifications. - Proceedings under Section 73 must be preceded by scrutiny under Section 61 and a proper opportunity to explain discrepancies. - Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of whether a hearing was requested. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on these points, but implicitly defends the orders passed.