2022 (3) TMI 1154 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - non-speaking order - HELD THAT - This writ application is disposed off by quashing and setting aside the orders in Form GST-DRC 07 dated 18.12.2021 and 27.12.2021 respectively (Annexure F), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Division 3, Gandhinagar, and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Division 3, Gandhinagar, for fresh hearing of the matter. The impugned orders are accordingly quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Division 3, Gandhinagar, shall hear the writ applicants once again. This time, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Division 3, Gandhinagar, shall ensure that a reasoned order is passed dealing with each and every submission that may be raised on behalf of the writ applicants - Let this entire exercise be undertaken at the earliest and completed within a period of three months from today. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders as non-speaking orders, request for quashing and setting aside orders, seeking fresh hearing with a reasoned order, time limit for completion of the process.

Analysis:
The writ applicants sought relief through a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Orders in Form GST-DRC-07 dated 18.12.2021 and 27.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The High Court noted that the impugned assessment orders were non-speaking orders, lacking essential reasoning. Initially inclined to quash and remit the matter for a fresh hearing, the Court issued a short notice to the respondents for final disposal. Upon further hearing, the Assistant Government Pleader acknowledged that the impugned orders were indeed non-speaking. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the orders, remitting the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh hearing.

The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct a new hearing, ensuring a reasoned order addressing all submissions raised by the writ applicants. Emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and detailed decision, the Court instructed that the entire process be completed within three months from the date of the judgment. The writ applicants were granted the opportunity to present oral and written submissions during the fresh hearing, including questioning the legality and validity of the show cause notices themselves. The Court concluded the judgment by disposing of the writ application and vacating the interim relief, permitting direct service of the order.