Dabjit Gogoi vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court found that the materials on record did not enable it to arrive at a conclusive view as to whether the notices purportedly issued by the GST Department were actually served on the petitioner. The absence of A/D cards and the unavailability of postal tracking records for older communications meant that the department could not definitively prove service. To ensure the ends of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Dibrugarh, on 01.04.2022 at 10:30 a.m. Upon the petitioner's appearance, the Assistant Commissioner was to issue a renewed notice containing the contents of the earlier notices. The petitioner would then be granted one week to file a reply, followed by a final hearing on 08.04.2022. A reasoned order would then be passed by the Assistant Commissioner. If the order was against the assessee, recovery proceedings could continue; if in favour, appropriate orders would be passed. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to appear, the authorities could proceed with the recovery as per the notice dated 04.01.2022.

Facts

The petitioner, Dabjit Gogoi, filed a writ petition challenging a recovery proceeding initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, through a notice dated 04.01.2022. The sole ground for the challenge was that no prior notices were served on the petitioner before the initiation of the recovery proceedings. The GST Department contended that notices for personal hearing were issued to the petitioner on multiple dates between November 2018 and July 2019. They also presented records indicating that similar notices were issued to 21 other assessees, all of whom received them, leading to a presumption of service on the petitioner. However, the department could not produce any Acknowledgement Due (A/D) cards or postal tracking records to conclusively prove service.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery proceeding initiated by the notice dated 04.01.2022 is vitiated due to non-service of prior notices on the petitioner, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that no prior notices were served on him before the impugned recovery notice dated 04.01.2022 was issued, rendering the recovery proceeding illegal. The petitioner relied on the absence of proof of service. Revenue's contention: The GST Department argued that notices for personal hearing were indeed issued to the petitioner on several dates. They further contended that since similar notices were served on 21 other assessees, a presumption of service could be drawn for the petitioner as well. The department relied on the issuance of notices from their office and the service on other assessees.