Ms Hindustan Construction Company Limited Through Mr Shailesh vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the Assessing Officer, being a fact-finding authority, was obligated to appreciate the allegations in the show-cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner before passing an order. The Court found that the impugned order dated 26.03.2026 was "cryptic" and lacked proper consideration of the petitioner's reply, as it merely stated the reply was unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bhopal, with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must pass a reasoned order that demonstrates due consideration of the submissions made by the affected party.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bhopal. The petitioner had previously received a notice under Section 73 of the GST Act on 31.05.2024 and submitted detailed replies. However, the Assessing Officer, despite the submissions, passed a cryptic order under Section 74 of the GST Act, merely stating that the reply was unsatisfactory and a DRC-07 was liable to be issued. The petitioner contended that there was no proper consideration of the facts and grounds presented in their reply by the Assessing Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessing Officer, as a fact-finding authority, adequately considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice before passing the impugned order under Section 74 of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the facts and grounds stated in their reply. The order was described as "cryptic" and lacked any proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions, rendering it unsustainable. The petitioner relied on the principle that a fact-finding authority must provide a reasoned and speaking order after considering all material placed before it. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent/State.