M/S Dana Pani vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Original PDF →
WTAX/1010/2023HC AllahabadGSTCNR UPHC01186786202324 August 20232 pages
For Petitioner: Aditya Pandey
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Dana Pani, challenged an order dated March 23, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Gorakhpur. This order raised a demand exceeding Rs. 19,06,242/- for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner's sole contention was that they were denied an opportunity of oral hearing. A notice was issued on April 6, 2021, requiring a reply within 30 days. However, the notice indicated 'NA' against the columns for 'Date of personal hearing', 'Time of personal hearing', and 'Venue where personal hearing will be held', suggesting no hearing was contemplated at that stage.

Held

The Court held that Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated against a person chargeable with tax or penalty. The Court agreed with the coordinate bench's interpretation in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals, stating that an assessee is not required to explicitly request a personal hearing; it is mandatory for the Assessing Authority to provide one before passing an adverse order. The fact that the petitioner might have marked 'No' in the column for availing personal hearing has no legal consequence. The Court emphasized that in the context of an assessment order creating significant civil liability, a minimal opportunity of hearing is essential to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated March 23, 2022, was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for issuing a fresh notice and conducting proceedings expeditiously. The petitioner undertook to appear on the next date fixed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessing Authority was bound to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing an adverse assessment order, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 75(4) of the Act mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. They relied on the interpretation by a coordinate bench of the High Court in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commerical Tax & 2 Ors., which held that an opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory and not dependent on a written request from the assessee. The petitioner also cited a Gujarat High Court decision in M/S Hitech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.

Sections Cited

Section 75(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171807-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1010 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Dana Pani Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1.

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

2.

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 23.3.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Gorakhpur for the tax period 2018-19, whereby demand in excess to Rs.19,06,242/- has been raised against the present petitioner.

3.

Solitary ground being pressed in the present petition is, the only notice in the proceedings was issued to the petitioner on 06.04.2021 seeking his reply within 30 days. Referring to item no. 3 of the table appended to that notice, it has been pointed out, the Assessing Authority had at that stage itself chosen to not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by mentioning "NA" against column description "Date of personal hearing". Similar endorsements were made against the columns for "Time of personal hearing" and "Venue where personal hearing will be held". Thus, it is the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was completely denied opportunity of oral hearing before the Assessing Authority.

4.

Relying on Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as interpreted by a coordinate bench of this Court in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commerical Tax & 2 Ors., (2022) 48 VLJ 325, it has been then asserted, the Assessing Authority was bound to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before he may have passed an adverse assessment order. Insofar as the assessment order has raised disputed demand of tax about Rs.19 lacs, the same is wholly adverse to the petitioner. In absence of opportunity of hearing afforded, the same is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals (supra). Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/S perused the record, Section 75(4) of the Act reads as under : "An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person."

6.

We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench in Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals (supra). Once it has been laid down by way of a principle of law that a person/assessee is not required to request for "opportunity of personal hearing" and it remained mandatory upon the Assessing Authority to afford such opportunity before passing an adverse order, the fact that the petitioner may have signified 'No' in the column meant to mark the assessee's choice to avail personal hearing, would bear no legal consequence.

7.

Even otherwise in the context of an assessment order creating heavy civil liability, observing such minimal opportunity of hearing is a must. Principle of natural justice would commend to this Court to bind the authorities to always ensure to provide such opportunity of hearing. It has to be ensured that such opportunity is granted in real terms. Here, we note, the impugned order itself has been passed on 23.03.2022. The stand of the assessee may remain unclear unless minimal opportunity of hearing is first granted. Only thereafter, the explanation furnished may be rejected and demand created.

8.

Not only such opportunity would ensure observance of rules of natural of justice but it would allow the authority to pass appropriate and reasoned order as may serve the interest of justice and allow a better appreciation to arise at the next/appeal stage, if required.

9.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.03.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Gorakhpur to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner undertakes to appear before that authority on the next date fixed such that proceedings may be concluded, as expeditiously as possible. Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Kuldeep (Ashutosh Srivastava,J) (Pritinker Diwaker,C.J.) KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.