M/S Gudari Sah Ramanad Sah vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Gudari Sah Ramanad Sah, a proprietary concern, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte assessment order dated April 18, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan, under Section 73(5) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, 2017. The assessment pertains to the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act and without proper service of notice, including a show cause notice, as mandated by Section 169 of the BGST Act. The respondents argued that a notice and a reminder were issued, and as there was no response, the ex parte order was passed.
Held
The Court held that there was a clear non-compliance with sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the BGST Act, 2017, which mandates providing an opportunity of hearing. On this ground alone, the petitioner had made out a case for interference with the impugned action. The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated by passing an ex parte order without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to present their case and without proper service of notices. The Court reasoned that statutory provisions requiring notice and hearing are crucial for fair adjudication. Therefore, the impugned assessment order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessment Officer to proceed afresh, ensuring due ample opportunity for the petitioner to file their reply/explanation to the show cause notice, followed by an oral hearing. The competent authority was directed to complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court expressly left undecided the issue of whether uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169, as the decision was based on the violation of Section 75(4).
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte assessment order dated April 18, 2024, passed under Section 73(5) of the BGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-granting of an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the ex parte assessment order dated April 18, 2024, is liable to be quashed because the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice or the assessment order by a valid mode of service as contemplated under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte without providing an ample opportunity of appearance and without granting an oral hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the BGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that they were not served with the show cause notices or the assessment order through any valid mode of service under Section 169 of the BGST Act, and mere uploading of notices on the GST portal does not constitute valid service. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that a notice followed by a reminder was issued to the petitioner. Since there was no response, they proceeded to pass the ex parte assessment order.
Sections Cited
Section 73(5), Section 75(4), Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 5 20-08-2025 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “ (a) For quashing the ex parte, Assessment Order dated 18.04.2024 passed under 2/4 Section 73(5) of the BGST Act, 2017 by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan and subsequent demand raised in Form DRC 07 dated 18.04.2024 with respect to Financial Year 2018-19 as the same has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017 and also without service of any notice, much less, show cause notice by any mode of service as contemplated under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017; (b) For holding that passing of the ex parte impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2024 without granting an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017 is violation of principle of natural justice and the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed; (c) For holding that as the Petitioner Firm was not served with the purported show cause notices or the impugned ex parte assessment order by a valid mode of service as contemplated under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017, the same amounts to principle of natural justice and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside; (d) For holding that mere uploading of Notices under the heading of 'Additional Notices and Orders' on the GST portal cannot be considered to be a valid mode of service of notice as required under Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017; (e) For holding that in the facts of the present case, the impugned assessment order dated 3/4 18.04.2024 is an ex parte order as the notices were never served upon the Petitioner firm in terms of Section 169 of the BGST Act, 2017 nor the Petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017; and/or for any other relief(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been provided ample opportunity of appearance before passing of assessment order, the same was countered by the respondent submitting that they had issued a notice followed by reminder, since there was no response, resultantly, they proceeded to pass ex parte assessment order on 18.04.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that they are required to comply sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the BGST Act, 2017 insofar as providing oral hearing to the petitioner.
Perusal of the records, it is evident that there is non-compliance of sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the BGST Act, 2017. On this short ground, the petitioner has made out the case so as to interfere with the impugned action of the respondent, accordingly, they are set aside.
Matter is remanded to the Assessment Officer to 4/4 proceed afresh after giving due ample opportunity of filing of reply/explanation to the show cause notice followed by oral hearing to the petitioner on behalf of the Official Respondent. The petitioner shall co-operate with the official respondent. The above exercise shall be completed by the competent authority/Assessment Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Writ petition is allowed.
Maynaz/Rajiv- (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Shailendra Singh, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.