Procedural Lapses Invalidate GST Assessment, Taxpayer Wins Challenge on Administrative Irregularities and Due Process Violations

The HC examined a tax dispute involving procedural irregularities in a GST assessment. The court found significant lapses in administrative process, including lack of hearing opportunity, non-service of preceding order, and untimely statutory appeals. Ultimately, the HC disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, preserving respondents' right to initiate fresh proceedings while highlighting critical procedural defects in the tax assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Adverse decision without opportunity of hearing under Section 73 of C-G&ST Act.
2. Scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of C-G&ST Act and Rule 142 of C-G&ST Rules, 2017.
3. Failure to file statutory appeal under Section 107 of C-G&ST Act within the prescribed period.
4. Rectification petition filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 161 of C-G&ST Act.
5. Non-service of the order preceding the impugned summary of order.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around an adverse decision made without providing the petitioner, a partnership firm, with an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (C-G&ST Act). The petitioner challenged the 'Summary of the order' dated 04.04.2022, alleging discrepancies in returns. The court noted the absence of clarity on whether a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of such an opportunity in cases of adverse decisions.

2. Another issue raised pertains to the scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the C-G&ST Act and Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that the prescribed rules were not followed, indicating a potential violation in the assessment process.

3. The court highlighted the failure of the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the C-G&ST Act within the prescribed time limit. Despite the impugned summary of order being promptly uploaded, the petitioner did not adhere to the statutory timeline for filing an appeal, raising concerns about procedural compliance.

4. Additionally, the petitioner's submission of a rectification petition under Section 161 of the C-G&ST Act was deemed untimely, filed well beyond the prescribed period for such applications. This further underscored the petitioner's non-compliance with statutory timelines, potentially impacting the legal remedies available.

5. Lastly, the issue of non-service of the order preceding the impugned summary of order was raised during the proceedings. The court noted that the required order was neither uploaded nor served to the petitioner before the issuance of the impugned summary of order, highlighting a procedural lapse in the administrative process.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the main writ petition in favor of the petitioner due to the respondents' failure to provide the necessary order preceding the impugned summary of order. The court allowed the petition while preserving the respondents' right to initiate fresh proceedings if deemed necessary, ensuring the preservation of both parties' rights and contentions in case of any future proceedings. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.

---