2023 (5) TMI 506 - HC - GST

Validity of Assessment Order - Determination of turnover - plying passenger buses in different States - bifurcation of AC and NON-AC tickets - no personal hearing was accorded to the petitioner before passing such order - violation of principles of natural justice or not - whether the information obtained by the 1st respondent from the third parties i.e., is confined to the turnover of the petitioner relating to A.P. State or it includes the remaining three States also? HELD THAT - It is deemed apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the relevant data showing the turnover of the petitioner relating to A.P, Tamilnadu, Telangana and Puducherry separately for appreciation of the Authorities and to make fresh assessment in accordance with law. The impugned Assessment Order dated 15.12.2022 passed by 1st respondent under SGST /CGST Acts, 2017 for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019- 20 (up to November, 2019) is hereby set aside and liberty is given to the petitioner to submit the relevant records showing the turnover relating to his bus business separately for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamilnadu and Puducherry for the relevant period - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves challenging an Assessment, Penalty & Interest order under the SGST and CGST Acts for tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, based on jurisdiction, authority, natural justice principles, and assessment procedures.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged an earlier Assessment Order for lack of personal hearing, leading to a remand for fresh assessment. The impugned order wrongly assessed the petitioner's total turnover from multiple states, contrary to statutory requirements.

Authorization and Jurisdiction Dispute:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper authorization and jurisdiction. The authorization for inspection was issued to a different officer than the one who passed the assessment order, raising concerns about procedural compliance.

Counter Arguments and Explanation:
The government pleader countered the petitioner's claims by explaining the restructuring of divisions and cadre strength, justifying the authority of the officer who passed the assessment order. The counter also highlighted the petitioner's lack of response to show cause notices and delays in producing relevant records.

Court's Decision and Directions:
The court noted discrepancies in the assessment process and directed the petitioner to submit relevant data showing turnover for each state separately. The impugned Assessment Order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to resubmit records for fresh assessment, subject to depositing admitted tax within a specified timeframe.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Assessment Order and granting the petitioner an opportunity to provide state-wise turnover data for a fresh assessment. The judgment emphasized compliance with governing laws and rules, ensuring a fair and lawful assessment process.