Deepak Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Facts
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, challenged a GST order passed against him. The petitioner received a notice dated December 11, 2020, directing him to file a reply by December 28, 2020. This notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Motihari Circle, Motihari. The petitioner contended that the statutory period of 30 days mandated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, was not afforded to him for making payment. The assessing officer proceeded to pass an ex parte order before the expiry of this 30-day period. The disputed order was dated January 8, 2021, and a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 was issued on January 9, 2021.
Held
The Court held that the statutory period of 30 days mandated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, was not afforded to the petitioner. The notice dated December 11, 2020, directed the petitioner to file a reply by December 28, 2020, which was within the 30-day period. The Court found that the law mandates that a 30-day period must be given to the parties, which was not done in this case. On this ground alone, the Court quashed the notice dated December 11, 2020, the order dated January 8, 2021, and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated January 9, 2021. The Court directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in light of the statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner undertook to cooperate fully. All proceedings were to be complied with positively.
Key Issues
1. Whether the notice dated December 11, 2020, and the subsequent order dated January 8, 2021, passed by the assessing officer, are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory 30-day period stipulated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the statutory minimum period of 30 days mandated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, was not provided. The notice required a reply within a period that fell short of the statutory 30 days, and the assessing officer proceeded to pass an ex parte order before this period expired. This violated the mandate of law. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 74(A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Juri iction Case No.4996 of 2022 ====================================================== Deepak Kumar, Son of Late Ramjee Prasad Sharma, Resident of Ward No. 3 Shankar Saraiya, Fatehtola, Turkauliya, District-East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Bihar, Patna.
The Principal Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Bihar, Patna.
The Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Bihar, Patna.
The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Motihari Circle, Motihari.
The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Motihari Circle, Motihari.
The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Motihari Circle, Motihari. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HON
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.