2025 (1) TMI 1428 - HC - GST

Rejection of client s prayer for analysis of the bricks produced - challenge to notice for personal hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Present situation on facts is that revenue omitted to obtain sample and is contending that petitioner has subsequently tendered a doctored sample. In the circumstances revenue has no basis to proceed against petitioner. It follows that we must and do quash impugned order dated 3rd January 2025 preceding show cause notice dated 29th September 2023 and reminder dated 4th January 2025. Petition disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the revenue's failure to take samples during the initial investigation invalidates subsequent proceedings against the petitioner.

2. Whether the petitioner's request for analysis of the bricks produced was wrongfully rejected by the revenue authorities.

3. Whether the impugned order and subsequent notices issued by the revenue authority were lawful and justified.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Failure to Take Samples During Investigation

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 154 of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, empowers the Commissioner or an authorized officer to take samples of goods from any taxable person when deemed necessary.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the revenue failed to take samples during the initial inspection on 14th February 2022, despite having confidential information about alleged clandestine business activities. The Court required an explanation for this omission, which was not satisfactorily addressed in the additional affidavit filed by the revenue.

Key Evidence and Findings: The revenue's affidavit relied on an argument rather than factual evidence to justify the omission. The Court found this insufficient to support the revenue's position.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Section 154, emphasizing the necessity of taking samples during the investigation. The omission rendered the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner baseless.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued that the petitioner had submitted doctored samples. However, the Court found that without initial samples taken by the revenue, this argument lacked foundation.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the revenue's failure to take samples invalidated the proceedings against the petitioner, necessitating the quashing of the impugned order and related notices.

2. Rejection of Petitioner's Request for Brick Analysis

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner's request for analysis of the bricks was based on a prior order from the Court dated 7th May 2024, which directed such an analysis.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered the petitioner's request for analysis as a follow-up to the earlier Court order. The rejection of this request by the revenue was viewed as non-compliance with the Court's direction.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's project report indicated a specific percentage of cement used in brick manufacturing, which was relevant for the analysis.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the revenue's rejection of the analysis request was contrary to the directive given in the previous Court order, undermining the petitioner's right to a fair assessment.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's stance was that the petitioner was using tactics to evade taxes. However, the Court focused on the procedural fairness mandated by its prior order.

Conclusions: The Court determined that the rejection of the analysis request was unjustified and contributed to the decision to quash the impugned order.

3. Lawfulness of Impugned Order and Notices

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The impugned order dated 3rd January 2025 and subsequent notices were issued under the authority of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court scrutinized the procedural adherence by the revenue in issuing the order and notices, particularly in light of the failure to take samples.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the revenue's actions were based on an incomplete investigation, lacking the necessary sample analysis to substantiate claims against the petitioner.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and due process, finding that the revenue's actions were procedurally deficient.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's argument centered on alleged tax evasion. The Court, however, emphasized the need for a substantiated basis for such claims, which was absent due to the procedural lapses.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order and related notices were unlawful due to the procedural deficiencies and