Statutory Notice Violations Invalidate GST Assessment Orders, Mandate Procedural Fairness and Proper Legal Compliance

HC found multiple procedural violations in GST assessment orders. The court quashed ex-parte orders for F.Y 2019-20 and 2018-19 due to non-compliance with statutory 30-day notice period under section 73(8) of GST Act. HC directed fresh assessment, prohibited coercive recovery actions, and emphasized adherence to legal notice requirements in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment order for F.Y 2019-20 challenged by petitioner
2. Ex-parte demand order issued before statutory notice period
3. Violation of section 73(8) of GST Act
4. Challenge to appellate order for F.Y 2019-20
5. Refund of pre-deposit amount
6. Direction for fresh assessment order for F.Y 2019-20
7. Allegations of illegal issuance of assessment and appellate orders
8. Rejection of Input claim and imposition of interest
9. Overall relief sought by petitioner

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 24.02.2021 for the Financial Year (F.Y) 2019-20, seeking a writ to quash the order imposing a total liability of Rs. 2,50,37,577. The court found that the notice period of 30 days, as required by law, was not provided before passing the ex-parte assessment order. 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.

2. The petitioner also contested the ex-parte demand order issued in form DRC 07 before the statutory notice period for the F.Y 2018-19. The court noted the violation of section 73(8) of the GST Act, which prescribes a minimum 30-day notice period. The court directed for the quashing of the demand order and emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory notice period in such cases.

3. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the legality of the assessment order and demand DRC-07 dated 24.02.2021, alleging a violation of section 73(8) of the GST Act. The court held that the notice issued on 15.02.2021, just 9 days before the assessment order, did not comply with the minimum 30-day notice requirement. Consequently, the court declared the assessment order and demand as bad in law, emphasizing the necessity of providing the mandated notice period.

4. The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 28.09.2022 for the F.Y 2019-20, where the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay/limitation. The court directed that no coercive action, including recovery, be taken until the present writ application is pending. The petitioner sought the quashing of the appellate order, highlighting the issue of delay as a ground for rejection.

5. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 20,56,878 deposited as a pre-deposit for the F.Y 2019-20 before filing an appeal under the CGST/SGST Act. The court was requested to direct the respondents to refund the amount, which was necessary as per Section 107(6)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court was urged to issue a writ of mandamus for the refund.

6. The petitioner requested directions for the respondents to pass a fresh assessment order for the F.Y 2019-20 after considering the available invoices and mapping of relevant documents to ascertain the actual tax liability. The court was asked to ensure a thorough assessment based on the petitioner's records and relevant documents.

7. Allegations were made against Respondent No. 7 and 5 for issuing the assessment and appellate orders in an illegal manner without examining the records or appreciating the supporting materials provided by the petitioner. The court was urged to hold the impugned orders as illegal and to ensure a fair evaluation of the case.

8. The petitioner contested the rejection of an Input claim and the imposition of interest amounting to Rs. 44,68,807 for the difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It was argued that the assessing officer should have provided an opportunity for a hearing before imposing the interest. The court was requested to declare the rejection of the Input claim as illegal.

9. Overall, the petitioner sought various reliefs, including the quashing of assessment and appellate orders, refund of pre-deposit amount, issuance of fresh assessment order, and a fair evaluation of the case. The court allowed the petition and disposed of any interlocutory applications related to the matter.

---