M/S Mother INDIA Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mother India Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an assessment order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexures-P2 and P2A). The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing, violating the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The respondents included the Union of India and the State of Bihar through various revenue authorities. The judgment notes that contentions raised regarding limitation were answered against the petitioner in a previous analogous case, M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors., decided on 27.11.2024.
Held
The Court held that the assessment order dated 18.01.2024 was passed in violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. The Court reasoned that the absence of a personal hearing, as required by law, renders the order procedurally flawed. Consequently, the impugned order and Annexure-P2A were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with a direction for the assessee to appear on 19.12.2024. If the assessee appeared on the notified date or an adjourned date, the Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh orders 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 requirement for a personal hearing must be strictly adhered to, and non-compliance vitiates the consequential order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 18.01.2024 was passed in violation of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments. This procedural lapse vitiates the order. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue on this issue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not successfully counter the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of a 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 : 28-11-2024 The contentions raised in the present writ petition on limitation is 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12067 of 2024 dt.28-11-2024 2/2
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment order impugned has been passed without granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST enactments, in which circumstance, the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure-P2) and Annexure-P2A 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 to appear before the Assessing Officer on 19.12.2024. If he appears on the date notified, or on a date once adjourned, the Assessing Officer shall pass orders within three months from the date of this judgment or within the limitation period provided, if not expired, whichever falls later. 3.The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.
ranjan/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA
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.