Amitamshu Tradcon Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Amitamshu Tradcon Private Limited, filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders and orders in Form GST DRC-07. The impugned orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Audit, Darbhanga Division, and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Begusarai Circle. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed without providing a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The tax periods and the specific amounts in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the filing of writ petitions before the Patna High Court.
Held
The Court held that the impugned assessment orders and the orders in Form GST DRC-07 were passed in violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The Court reasoned that the failure to provide a personal hearing is a violation of a statutory requirement. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on January 15, 2025. If the petitioner appears on the notified date or an adjourned date, the Assessing Officer is to pass fresh orders after hearing the assessee within three months from the date of the judgment or within the remaining limitation period, whichever is later. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory mandate for a personal hearing must be adhered to; non-compliance vitiates the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment orders and orders in Form GST DRC-07 were passed in violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment orders and the orders in Form GST DRC-07 were passed without granting a personal hearing, thereby violating the statutory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The petitioner sought to have these orders set aside on this ground. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents on this issue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position, or at least the court's interpretation of the law, did not preclude the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 19-12-2024 The contentions raised in the present writ petitions on limitation are answered in C.W.J.C. No. 4180 of 2024 and analogous cases, M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors. vide judgment dated 27.11.2024, against the petitioner.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment orders impugned have been passed without granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments, in which circumstance, the impugned orders and the orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.10.2023 and 21.04.2024 (Annexure P-5 series) respectively, are set aside on violation of the statutory mandate for notice of personal hearing and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer directing the assessee
Patna High Court CWJC No.13405 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024 3/3 to appear before the Assessing Officer on 15.01.2025. If he appears on the date notified, or on a date once adjourned, the Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee shall pass orders within three months from the date of this judgment or within the limitation period provided, if not expired, whichever falls later.
The writ petitions stand disposed of with the above directions.
avinash/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 20.12.2024 Transmission Date N/A
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.