New Indian Ent Udyoug vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Regarding the issue of limitation, the Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the circulars issued by the revenue. Therefore, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge these circulars if they so desired. On the issue of sufficient opportunity, the Court found that show-cause notices were issued on 09.11.2023, granting time for reply until 09.12.2023. However, the orders were passed on 06.12.2023, before the expiry of the reply period and without affording a personal hearing, which is a mandate under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act. Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner to the Assessing Officer, directing the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks and appear before the Assessing Officer on 04.12.2024, for the matter to be heard and finalized. The Court made no observations on the merits of the assessment.

Facts

The petitioner, New Indian Ent Udyoug, filed multiple writ petitions before the Patna High Court challenging orders passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These orders pertained to five assessment years: 2021-22, 2022-23, 2018-19, 2020-21, and 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period and that they were not granted sufficient opportunity to present their case. The revenue argued that circulars extending limitation periods and the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding extension of limitation were applicable. The court noted that the circulars were not challenged by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are barred by limitation, considering the applicability of relevant circulars and the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. Petitioner's contention: The orders are barred by limitation. Revenue's contention: Circulars extending the date of filing of returns and the date of limitation, as well as the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, are applicable, making the proceedings within the permissible time limits. 2. Whether the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to file a reply and be heard before the impugned orders were passed, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act. Petitioner's contention: Sufficient opportunity was not granted. Revenue's contention: No specific argument recorded in the judgment regarding this point, but the facts indicate the orders were passed before the reply period expired.