Prithvi Raj Chufal vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2025 was vitiated because no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The Court found that the material on record did not indicate that a personal hearing was provided. This failure to grant a hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice and specifically sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 75 of the GST Act, rendered the final order unsustainable. The Court relied on the submission of the petitioner and the concession made by the Revenue that the tax amount had been deposited. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without providing a mandatory personal hearing is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Authority for fresh proceedings from the stage of the show-cause notice. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before a fresh order is passed. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Prithvi Raj Chufal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.04.2025, issued by the State Tax Officer. This order demanded tax amounting to Rs. 6,37,708.00, including CGST, SGST, penalty, and interest. The petitioner also challenged the show-cause notice dated 08.10.2024. The petitioner's GST registration had previously been cancelled for non-filing of returns, and the Department had subsequently granted temporary registration. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was not personally served and was only uploaded on the portal. He further argued that the Proper Officer passed the assessment order without affording a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the GST Act. The petitioner stated he had deposited the entire tax amount, excluding interest and penalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2025 is vitiated due to the non-affordance of a personal hearing to the petitioner, in violation of Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the failure to provide a personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the GST Act, renders the final order invalid. He relied on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in "M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs. Deputy Commissioner & another" (Writ Petition (M/B) No.316 of 2025), which held that the absence of a personal hearing vitiates the order. The petitioner also noted that he had already deposited the tax amount, except for interest and penalty. The respondent Revenue, after obtaining instructions, conceded that the tax amount had been deposited, with only interest and penalty remaining outstanding. The Revenue did not present any argument against the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of personal hearing.