2021 (12) TMI 172 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rate of tax - services rendered a pure services (Cleaning) to the Nagar Parishad, different Nagar Panchayat and submitted Bill without GST and received payment without GST - Section 61 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 99 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rule, 2017 - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, minimum statutory period of 30 days mandated under the provisions of Section 74(A) of CGST/BGST Act, 2017 was not afforded to the petitioner for making payment due and prior to the expiry of 30 days, the assessing officer proceeded to pass the order, ex parte in nature. The notice dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure-7) directed the petitioner to file reply on 29th of February, 2020 which was within the period of 30 days. It is the mandate of law that 30 days' period has to be afforded to the parties, which was not done in the instant case. The notice dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure-7) as also the order of assessment dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure-8) is quashed with the direction to the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in the light of the statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax exemption on pure service provided to government authorities.
2. Validity of show cause notice and orders issued under GST Act.
3. Compliance with statutory period for making payment under CGST/BGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought tax exemption for pure services provided to government authorities under specific functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities. The petitioner claimed that the services rendered were tax-free, and challenges were raised against show cause notices and orders demanding tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner also requested the refund of deducted amounts and sought other reliefs.

2. The Court noted that the statutory period of 30 days required for payment under the CGST/BGST Act was not provided to the petitioner before the ex parte order was passed. The notice directing the petitioner to respond was issued within the 30-day period, but the order was passed prematurely. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice and assessment order, directing the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice and pass an appropriate order in compliance with statutory provisions and the law. The Court emphasized the need for all proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the law.

3. The judgment allowed the petition, indicating that the petitioner agreed to cooperate fully. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of in light of the decision. The Court's ruling focused on ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in matters related to taxation and government services, emphasizing the importance of due process and compliance with legal provisions.