New Indian Ent Udyoug (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of sufficient opportunity. It noted that the show-cause notices were issued on November 9, 2023, with a reply deadline of December 9, 2023, but the orders were passed on December 6, 2023. This was before the expiry of the reply period and without providing a personal hearing, which is mandated by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The Court also addressed the limitation issue by stating that the Circulars, which were not challenged by the petitioner, were relied upon by the revenue. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge these Circulars if they so desired. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within four weeks, and the Assessing Officer was directed to hear the petitioner on December 4, 2024, or any other date after giving due notice, and finalize the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, New Indian Ent Udyoug, a sole proprietorship firm, 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 assessment years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2018-19, 2020-21, and 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed beyond the limitation period and that they were not granted sufficient opportunity to present their case. Specifically, show-cause notices were issued on November 9, 2023, granting time to reply until December 9, 2023. However, the impugned orders were passed on December 6, 2023, before the expiry of the reply period and without affording a personal hearing.

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 Circulars extending timelines and the Supreme Court's decision in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020? 2. Whether the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to file a reply and participate in a personal hearing before the orders were passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. They also contended that they were not given adequate time to file their reply to the show-cause notices and were denied a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Government Advocate submitted that Circulars had been issued extending the dates for filing returns and the limitation period. They also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 concerning the extension of limitation.