Super Crop Safe LTD. vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that both parties were ad-idem on the calculation of taxes. However, the respondents faced a technical difficulty in uploading the rectification order online. Consequently, the Court directed that for the relevant period (referred to as A.Y.2018-19 in the order, though the judgment is about GST), an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- needed to be paid. The Court permitted this payment to be made manually. The respondents were further directed to make the manual rectification order available through e-mode within two weeks, with the payment to follow within a week thereafter. The matter was disposed of finally based on this arrangement. The issue of whether the original order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) or the impact of the calculation error was implicitly resolved by the parties' agreement and the subsequent directions for rectification and payment.

Facts

The petitioner, Super Crop Safe Ltd., challenged an order dated 04.03.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application on 20.04.2022 pointing out a calculation error in the assessment of GST, which they argued went to the root of the impugned order. The Court, on 30.06.2022, issued notice and permitted the authority to decide on the calculation error. Upon final hearing, both parties agreed on the tax calculation, but the respondents could not upload the rectification order online.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 04.03.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for being passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act? 2. Whether the calculation error pointed out by the petitioner in their application dated 20.04.2022 vitiates the impugned order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. They also contended that a significant calculation error in the assessment, brought to the authority's notice, undermined the merit of the order. The petitioner relied on the principle that procedural fairness must be observed. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State in response to the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of opportunity or the calculation error.