M/S Motiprabha Infratech PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the respondents failed to provide the petitioner with the minimum statutory period of 30 days mandated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, to make their payment and file a reply. The assessing officer proceeded to pass an ex parte order before the expiry of this 30-day period. The notice dated February 15, 2021, directed the petitioner to file a reply on February 21, 2021, which was within the 30-day window. The Court emphasized that the law requires a 30-day period to be afforded to parties, which was not done in this case. Consequently, on this ground alone, the Court quashed the notice dated February 15, 2021, and the ex parte assessment order dated February 24, 2021. The Court directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in compliance with the statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. All proceedings were to be positively complied with.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an ex parte assessment order dated February 24, 2021, and a notice dated February 15, 2021. The petitioner contended that the respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Bihar authorities, failed to provide the mandatory 30-day period stipulated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for them to file a reply. The notice directed the petitioner to respond by February 21, 2021, which was less than the statutory minimum period. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse rendered the subsequent order invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated February 15, 2021, and the subsequent ex parte assessment order dated February 24, 2021, are liable to be quashed on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory 30-day period prescribed under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, for the petitioner to file a reply. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to adhere to the statutory mandate of providing a minimum of 30 days for them to submit their response. The notice issued on February 15, 2021, required a reply by February 21, 2021, which falls short of the legally required period. This procedural deficiency, according to the petitioner, vitiates the entire assessment process and the resulting order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue or State) on this issue.