2024 (9) TMI 1684 - HC - GST

Assessment and penalty orders quashed for denying personal hearing opportunity under Section 75(4) CGST Act

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Lorry Transport Versus The Assistant Commissioner St and Others.

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Lorry Transport Versus The Assistant Commissioner St and Others. - 2024 (90) G.S.T.L. 197 (A. P.) Issues:Challenge to assessment order and penalty order based on lack of adequate opportunity of hearing, requirement of three adjournments before passing orders, authorization for inspection and assessment proceedings, absence of DIN numbers on orders.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order and penalty order in two writ petitions, alleging inadequate opportunity of hearing and lack of adjournments as required by Section-75 of the CGST Act, 2017.2. The petitioner argued that the inspecting officer did not have proper authorization under Section-67 of the CGST Act, 2017 to conduct assessment proceedings. The petitioner contended that the assessing officer should have obtained authorization before passing the assessment order.3. The petitioner further raised a new ground regarding the absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) on the orders, citing a previous judgment. The petitioner argued that the absence of DIN numbers rendered the orders invalid.4. The Government Pleader countered the petitioner's contentions by explaining that Section-75 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not mandate three adjournments before passing orders, only limits the number of adjournments. The Pleader also clarified the requirements of authorization under Section-67 and the necessity of DIN numbers on orders for authentication purposes.5. The Court examined the provisions of Section-67 and Section-63 of the CGST Act, 2017 concerning authorization for inspection and assessment of unregistered persons. The Court found that the assessing officer had proper territorial jurisdiction and did not require additional authorization for assessment.6. Regarding the issue of adjournments, the Court noted that while Section-75 allows for adjournments, the petitioner did not seek further adjournments after the initial request. However, the Court emphasized the necessity of granting a personal hearing if an adverse decision is contemplated, which was lacking in this case.7. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment and penalty orders, directing the respondents to conduct a fresh assessment proceeding after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The Court did not delve into the requirement of DIN numbers on orders due to the decision to set aside the orders.8. The Writ Petitions were disposed of without costs, with directions for a fresh assessment proceeding and personal hearing for the petitioner.