2025 (12) TMI 1443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), despite glaring and fundamental instances of statutory non-compliance which, in our considered opinion, vitiate the entire assessment proceeding ab initio. The matter warrants a comprehensive examination of the adherence to the principles of natural justice and the strict jurisdictional limits imposed by the GST statute. 2. The Appellant is a contractor/developer/ concessionaire involved in major public works, specifically the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model. The assessment pertains to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The substantive dispute hinges upon the taxability of ann....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., despite an explicit request in the reply, constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provision of Section 75(4) of the Act, warranting the setting aside of the ex-parte final order. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the assessment order is afflicted by dual, incurable statutory breaches. Firstly, he pointed out the patent jurisdictional flaw: the Adjudicating Authority confirmed a tax liability of Rs. 83,61,577.08, which undeniably exceeded the amount of Rs. 75,65,693.00 specified in the SCN, in direct contravention of the clear prohibition contained in Section 75(7) of the Act. Secondly, he stressed the breach of natural justice, highlighting that the Appellant had explicitly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both appear to have been severely compromised in the instant case. 8. The first substantive question hinges on the direct contravention of Section 75(7), which operates as a jurisdictional ceiling. The provision unequivocally states that the amount confirmed in the final order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice. The record establishes a clear and material difference: the tax confirmed (Rs.83,61,577.08) exceeded the tax charged in the SCN (Rs. 75,65,693.00). This increase, irrespective of the authority's post-facto justification of a calculation error, is a direct breach of the explicit language of the statute. II. DECISION ON SQL II: Violation of Section 75(4) (Breach of Natural Justice) 9. The princip....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the merits of the case. The assessment order, having been passed ex-parte despite the statutory mandate, is rendered unsustainable and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 12. The cumulative effect of the jurisdictional flaw under Section 75(7) and the procedural breach under Section 75(4), compounded by the non-application of mind evident in the parallel proceedings under Section 73 and Section 74, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the assessment was fundamentally flawed. 13. Therefore, we are at definite conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority under the Goods and Services Tax Act is strictly bound by the jurisdictional ceiling imposed by Section 75(7), and any demand confirmed in the final order that excee....