Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court quashed the notice dated January 25, 2020 (Annexure-5) and 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 Court also directed that all proceedings be positively complied with. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission that their case was covered by the High Court's judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 3374 of 2021. The reasoning in the cited judgment, which was reproduced, highlighted that the statutory period of 30 days mandated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, was not afforded to the petitioner for making payment, and the assessing officer proceeded to pass an ex-parte order prior to the expiry of this period. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and adherence to statutory timelines are mandatory for valid assessment orders.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta, challenged multiple orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bagha Circle, Bagha. These orders, dated January 15, 2020, and February 11, 2020, imposed tax, penalty, and interest totaling Rs. 373,240 for January-March 2019 and Rs. 307,896 for June 2019, and Rs. 372,406 and Rs. 643,502 respectively for the same periods, directing the issuance of DRC-01 and DRC-07. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders and demands. During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that their case was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3374 of 2021, Krishi Educational and Health Seva Sansthan Kailash Enclave Versus The Union of India & Ors., and requested a direction for the Assessing Officer to consider their case in light of that decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte final orders dated January 15, 2020, and February 11, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bagha Circle, Bagha, imposing tax, penalty, and interest, are liable to be set aside? The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without proper adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, and that their case is squarely covered by the High Court's decision in C.W.J.C. No. 3374 of 2021, which dealt with similar issues of taxability and procedural compliance. The respondents did not present any arguments against the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the cited precedent.