Natural justice requires meaningful hearing in tax assessment; cryptic orders ignoring objections can be set aside and remanded.

The constitutional challenge to section 174 of the Kerala State GST Act and the connected attack on the amendment failed because the issue had already been rejected in earlier binding precedent. The assessment order, however, was set aside for breach of natural justice since it did not meaningfully consider the taxpayer's objections, including requests for particulars, cross-examination and personal hearing. The order was found to be cryptic despite reliance on alleged unaccounted sales and purchases, so the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after giving a proper opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the connected constitutional attack was sustainable; (ii) Whether the assessment order was vitiated for violation of natural justice and liable to be set aside and remanded.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the connected constitutional attack was sustainable.

Analysis: The challenge to the constitutional amendment and to section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had already been considered in an earlier binding decision of the Court and was rejected. In view of that precedent, the constitutional challenge could not be reopened in the present proceeding.

Conclusion: The challenge to section 174 and the connected constitutional attack failed and no relief was granted on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order was vitiated for violation of natural justice and liable to be set aside and remanded.

Analysis: The assessment order did not show meaningful consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner, including the request for details of the parties, cross-examination and personal hearing. The order was cryptic in its conclusion despite reliance on a voluminous list of alleged unaccounted sales and purchases. In these circumstances, the petitioner had been denied a proper opportunity to present the case.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge was rejected, but the assessment proceedings were reopened for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after due hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order that does not reflect consideration of the assessee's objections and is passed without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision on merits.

---