Taxpayer Rights Upheld: Assessment Order Invalidated Due to Procedural Flaws in Notice and Hearing Process

HC found a violation of natural justice principles in tax assessment proceedings. The assessment order was quashed due to procedural irregularities in notice service and hearing opportunities. The court directed the tax authority to issue a fresh notice and conduct a proper hearing in compliance with statutory requirements under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment order issuance.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, challenged the assessment order and summary of assessment order issued by the second respondent, alleging a violation of natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the assessment orders and requested a fresh assessment with proper verification and hearing opportunity.

The petitioner had initially filed a return for the assessment year 2018-19 and received a show-cause notice from the second respondent. Despite submitting a reply and engaging in email communications, the second respondent issued an ex-parte assessment order, claiming that a personal hearing opportunity was provided on a specific date. The petitioner later filed an application for rectification, highlighting errors in the assessment order due to lack of appearance opportunity.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the assessment order was invalid as it did not comply with Section 75(4) requirements. The counsel pointed out discrepancies in the notice dates and emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, citing relevant case law to support the argument.

On the other hand, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the assessment proceedings and had been granted personal hearing opportunities before. However, the court noted that the notice dates and service of hearing intimation were crucial in ensuring procedural fairness.

After considering the submissions and records, the court found that the petitioner was justified in expecting a fresh hearing notice due to discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the assessment process. Since the petitioner was entitled to a hearing opportunity, especially for cases involving substantial demands, the court concluded that the assessment order was unsustainable due to lack of evidence of proper notice service.

Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the assessment order and directing the second respondent to issue a fresh notice for a proper hearing in accordance with Section 75(4) requirements.

---