Ms Star Medical Stor vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the procedure adopted by the respondent was illegal and not in conformity with the prescribed procedure. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that fixing the personal hearing date before the deadline for submitting the reply to the show cause notice rendered the hearing illusory and a violation of natural justice principles. The Court acknowledged the concession made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the Assessment Order was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer to proceed from the stage of the show cause notice, with a direction to fix a fresh date for personal hearing, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Star Medical Store, filed a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax, under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, and a related show cause notice. The petitioner contended that the date fixed for personal hearing was prior to the last date for submitting a reply to the show cause notice, rendering the hearing illusory and the procedure illegal. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in a similar case. The respondent revenue authority conceded that the hearing date, being 18 days before the reply submission deadline, was not in conformity with the prescribed procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondent in fixing the date for personal hearing before the last date for submission of the reply to the show cause notice was illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as per Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the procedure was wholly illegal because the date of personal hearing was fixed before the last date for submitting the reply to the show cause notice. They relied on the precedent set in "M/s Abuturrab Agencies v. The Commissioner, State Tax and another". Respondent's contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that since the date for personal hearing was fixed 18 days prior to the last date for filing the reply, the hearing offered was illusory and not in conformity with the prescribed procedure.