Tax Assessment Orders Invalidated Due to Procedural Defects in Personal Hearing Requirements Under GST Act

HC allowed writ petitions challenging tax assessment orders. The court found procedural violations in personal hearing requirements under GST Act, 2017, specifically lack of opportunity for assessee to present case. Assessment orders were quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directive to provide personal hearing and make decision within four weeks. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenging assessment orders passed by Deputy State Tax Officer for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Opportunity of Personal Hearing
The petitioner, a retail business dealing with paper products, challenged assessment orders due to lack of opportunity for personal hearing. The respondent issued show cause notices with personal hearing dates, but petitioner claimed inability to attend due to health reasons. Despite a representation requesting a personal hearing, the impugned orders were passed without consideration. The Court noted the requirement of granting a personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017, even if no formal request is made by the assessee. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles and quashed the assessment orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with a directive for a personal hearing to be provided.

Issue 2: Compliance with Legal Provisions
The Court observed discrepancies in the respondent's actions, such as not providing reasons for rejecting objections, affording personal hearing before receiving replies, and issuing non-speaking orders. Emphasizing the need for a personal hearing only after receiving the assessee's reply and contemplating an adverse decision, the Court set aside the impugned orders based on a previous decision and remanded the issue for fresh consideration. The petitioner was instructed to appear for a personal hearing without a separate notice, with the respondent required to make a decision within four weeks thereafter.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, with the impugned orders set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to attend a personal hearing, and the respondent was instructed to make a decision within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---