New Indian Ent Udyoug vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of sufficient opportunity. It noted that show-cause notices were issued on 09.11.2023, granting time for reply until 09.12.2023. However, the impugned orders were passed on 06.12.2023, which was before the expiry of the reply period and without affording a personal hearing, a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. Regarding the issue of limitation, the Court observed that the circulars were not challenged by the petitioner and left it open for the petitioner to challenge them if they so desired. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks and appear before the Assessing Officer on 04.12.2024 for a hearing, after which the matter would be finalized. The Court made no observations on the merits of the assessment.

Facts

The petitioner, New Indian Ent Udyoug, a sole proprietorship firm, filed multiple writ petitions 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 on extension of limitation were applicable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were 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 argument: The orders were passed beyond the statutory limitation period. Revenue's argument: Circulars extending the date of filing returns and the date of limitation, along with the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, rendered the proceedings within time. 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 argument: The orders were passed before the expiry of the time granted for filing a reply and without providing a personal hearing. Revenue's argument: No specific argument was recorded for the revenue on this point.