2022 (7) TMI 446 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - levy of tax, interest and penalty without dealing with the grounds in the submission/reply and without stating in the order regarding the period/days of default for which the interest and penalty has been imposed - opportunity of hearing not provided - ex-parte order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons-(a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences; (c) It is also found that the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature. Writ petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order and demand raised by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
2. Rejection of appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) on the ground of limitation
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the orders
4. Relief sought regarding input tax credit under CGST and BGST Act
5. Coercive action and recovery measures taken against the petitioner
6. Refund of pre-deposit amount and credit ledger recovery
7. Upholding of GSTR-3B return and Input Tax Credit claim
8. Direction to restrain coercive action and implementation of recovery measures
9. Remand of the matter to Assessing Authority for fresh decision

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order and demand raised by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, alleging lack of proper consideration of grounds and absence of details regarding interest and penalty imposition. The High Court, noting violations of natural justice principles and lack of sufficient reasoning in the orders, set aside the impugned orders and directed a fresh decision by the Assessing Authority after affording a fair opportunity of hearing and compliance with natural justice principles.

2. The rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) based on limitation grounds was addressed by the Court, emphasizing that statutory remedies do not preclude judicial interference if orders are found to be legally flawed. The Court intervened due to procedural irregularities and lack of substantive consideration, leading to the setting aside of the appeal rejection order.

3. The Court highlighted the importance of natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the need for fair hearings and reasoned decisions. The lack of adequate time for representation and the ex parte nature of the orders were key factors in the Court's decision to quash the impugned orders and direct a fresh adjudication with proper adherence to procedural fairness.

4. The petitioner sought relief regarding input tax credit under the CGST and BGST Act, challenging the denial of credit based on procedural conditions. The Court did not provide a definitive ruling on the substantive issues but directed the Assessing Authority to decide the matter on merits, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

5. Concerns regarding coercive actions and recovery measures taken against the petitioner were addressed by the Court, which directed the immediate de-freezing of bank accounts and restrained any coercive steps during the pendency of the case. The Court emphasized cooperation and fair proceedings without unnecessary delays or adverse actions against the petitioner.

6. The Court addressed the petitioner's requests for refund of pre-deposit amounts and credit ledger recoveries, outlining specific conditions for deposit requirements and potential refunds based on the final decision of the Assessing Authority. The Court ensured that any excess deposits would be promptly refunded to the petitioner.

7. The Court directed the Assessing Authority to uphold the petitioner's GSTR-3B return and Input Tax Credit claim, emphasizing the need for a fair and reasoned decision on these matters. The Court highlighted the importance of proper consideration of claims and adherence to legal requirements in assessing tax liabilities.

8. In addition to restraining coercive actions, the Court directed the respondents to refrain from implementing recovery measures until the resolution of the present case. The Court emphasized the need for fair proceedings and cooperation from all parties involved in the tax assessment process.

9. The Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision, highlighting the importance of compliance with natural justice principles and statutory provisions in tax assessment proceedings. The Court reserved rights for the petitioner to challenge future orders and ensured a reasonable and expeditious resolution of the case within a specified timeframe.

← Previous Next →