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

Held

The Court allowed the petition, quashing both the order dated 05.04.2024 and the order dated 21.10.2024. The primary reasoning for allowing the petition was the non-grant of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which the Court found to be a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court relied on a previous Division Bench judgment in M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited Versus State of U.P. and another, which held that the provisions of Section 75(4) are mandatory. While the petitioner raised arguments regarding the limitation period for the order under Section 73, the Court chose not to delve into those arguments, focusing solely on the procedural defect of not providing a hearing. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is granted. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise the question of limitation before the Assessing Authority in the fresh proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, challenged two orders. The first order, dated 05.04.2024, was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The second order, dated 21.10.2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the first order as being time-barred. 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 (Appeal), State Tax, Lucknow, and two others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 05.04.2024, 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 indeed beyond the limitation period. The respondent's arguments on this point are not recorded. 2. Whether the petitioner was granted a mandatory opportunity of hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was granted. The respondent's arguments on this point are not recorded. The Court also considered the dismissal of the appeal as being beyond limitation, but focused its decision on the non-grant of hearing.