TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to Notification No. 56 of 2023 and Notification No. 60 of 2023 was maintainable and could succeed; (ii) Whether the assessment order passed under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be interfered with for breach of the requirement of hearing.
Issue (i): Whether the challenge to Notification No. 56 of 2023 and Notification No. 60 of 2023 was maintainable and could succeed.
Analysis: The challenge to the notifications was held to be covered against the petitioner in view of an earlier coordinate Bench decision on the same issue.
Conclusion: The challenge to the notifications failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order passed under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be interfered with for breach of the requirement of hearing.
Analysis: The record in the impugned order showed appearance of the taxpayer representative and filing of reconciliation, along with prior service of show-cause notice and grant of time to explain the discrepancy. On that basis, the plea of violation of the statutory requirement of hearing was not accepted, and no jurisdictional error was found in the order.
Conclusion: The assessment order was not interfered with.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the impugned action was left undisturbed, with liberty to pursue any remedy available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge against a GST assessment will not succeed where the record shows that notice and an effective opportunity to explain were afforded and no jurisdictional infirmity is demonstrated; a similar challenge to notifications already rejected by a coordinate Bench cannot be reopened on the same grounds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
