M/S Drf Infra Builders PVT LTD Th Mujeeb Ur Rehman Dar vs. Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department

Held

The Court quashed the assessment order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the State Taxes Officer, Circle Rajouri, and the appellate order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-II), Jammu. The Court directed that the petitioner be granted fifteen days from the date of the order to submit its response to the show cause notice. The Court also mandated that an opportunity of hearing be afforded to the petitioner. Subsequently, the State Taxes Officer, Circle Rajouri, was directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's response. As a condition, the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the total tax payable in terms of the demand raised. The Court explicitly stated that this order would not be treated as a precedent, having been passed due to the peculiar facts and circumstances and on the basis of the consent of the parties.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s DRF Infra Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging several orders. These included a show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and an assessment order dated 22.12.2023 passed under Section 63 of the GST Act, 2017, by the State Taxes Officer, Circle Rajouri. The petitioner also challenged an order dated 31.07.2025 freezing its bank accounts and an order dated 15.10.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-II), Jammu, which rejected its appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed against a temporary ID and not its GSTIN, and that it only came to know about these proceedings in August 2025 when its bank account was frozen. It further argued that its appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed as time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and the assessment order dated 22.12.2023 passed under Section 63 of the GST Act, 2017, are illegal and without jurisdiction, particularly considering the petitioner's GSTIN was reflected in the notice itself, and the assessment was allegedly made against a temporary ID? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, the orders are bad in law and without jurisdiction as they were passed against a temporary ID and not the registered GSTIN. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the appeal filed before the appellate authority was rightly dismissed on grounds of limitation? (Petitioner's contention: The appeal was filed after gaining knowledge of the assessment order upon bank account freezing, and the GST portal did not accept the appeal, necessitating a physical filing which was then dismissed as time-barred. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the petitioner was denied a due opportunity of hearing before the passing of the assessment order dated 22.12.2023? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, the order was passed without affording a due opportunity of hearing. Revenue's contention: The respondents shall provide due opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.)