Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Procedural Errors Invalidate GST Cess Assessment, Directs 15% Payment and Fresh Order Within 90 Days HC ruled on a GST cess liability case, finding procedural irregularities in the assessment order. The court set aside the original order and remanded the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Procedural Errors Invalidate GST Cess Assessment, Directs 15% Payment and Fresh Order Within 90 Days
HC ruled on a GST cess liability case, finding procedural irregularities in the assessment order. The court set aside the original order and remanded the matter, directing the petitioner to pay 15% of cess and submit a detailed reply. The respondent must provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months, with the bank attachment lifted.
Issues involved: Challenge to order imposing liability for cess without personal hearing.
In this case, the petitioner challenged an order imposing liability for cess along with penalty, contending that a personal hearing was not provided. The petitioner argued that the liability was limited to cess payable under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, and due to the initial period of GST implementation, they were unaware of such liability. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the lack of personal hearing was due to the petitioner not requesting it and sought an opportunity for the same, emphasizing the availability of requisite credit in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger.
The learned Government Advocate representing the respondent accepted notice and pointed out that the petitioner admitted liability for the payment of cess. She argued that no interference was warranted in this case. Upon reviewing the impugned order, it was noted that the order followed both an intimation and a show cause notice. The petitioner had responded to the show cause notice by providing details of purchases and supplies. The absence of a personal hearing was attributed to the petitioner not opting for it. Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing if an adverse order is proposed. Despite the undisputed liability for cess payment, it was deemed necessary to protect the revenue interest in the interest of justice.
Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration under certain conditions. The petitioner was directed to remit 15% of the amounts payable towards cess within two weeks and submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice within the same period. Upon satisfaction of the payment and receipt of the reply, the respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months. As the assessment order was overturned, the bank attachment was lifted. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
