M/S Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation Of INDIA Thru. Dy. Director General Anupam Swaroop Lko. vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade Ii Apeal State Tax Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court allowed the petition based on the ground of non-grant of an opportunity of hearing, without delving into the arguments regarding the limitation period for the order under Section 73. The Court relied on the Division Bench's decision in M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited Versus State of U.P. and another, which held that the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act are mandatory. Consequently, both the order dated 09.12.2023 and the order dated 22.10.2024 were quashed. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise the question of limitation before the Assessing Authority. The issue of limitation for the order under Section 73 was expressly left to be raised before the Assessing Authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, challenged two orders. The first order, dated 09.12.2023, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 22.10.2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner contended that the order under Section 73 was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period and that no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The respondent is the Additional Commissioner, Grade II, State Tax, Lucknow, and two others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 09.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 73(10) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the order was time-barred. The respondent's arguments on this issue are not recorded. 2. Whether the petitioner was granted a mandatory opportunity of hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act before the order dated 09.12.2023 was passed? The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is mandatory. The respondent's arguments on this issue are not recorded. 3. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed as being beyond limitation by the order dated 22.10.2024? The petitioner contended that the dismissal was erroneous. The respondent's arguments on this issue are not recorded.