New Indian Ent Udyoug (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) 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 liberty to challenge the relevant circulars if they desired, but did not make a definitive finding on the limitation aspect in this judgment. However, concerning the opportunity to be heard, the Court found that the orders were passed on December 6, 2023, while the time granted for filing a reply to the show-cause notices issued on November 9, 2023, was until December 9, 2023. This meant the orders were passed before the expiry of the reply period and without granting 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 December 4, 2024, for a hearing and finalization of the matter. The Court made no observations on the merits of the assessment.

Facts

The petitioner, New Indian Ent Udyoug, a sole proprietorship, 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's primary contentions were 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.

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. 2. Whether the petitioner was afforded 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 Arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders were time-barred. They also argued that they were not given adequate time to file their reply to the show-cause notices and were denied a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that circulars issued by the department and the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 provided extensions for filing returns and limitations, thus making the orders within the permissible time frame. The revenue did not explicitly address the contention regarding the opportunity of being heard.