Facts of the Case

Dabjit Gogoi, a GST assessee, instituted this writ petition before the Gauhati High Court seeking interference in a recovery proceeding initiated by notice dated 04.01.2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Division. The petitioner's sole ground was that no prior notices had ever been served on him before this recovery notice was issued. The Department produced an earlier order dated 30.09.2018 of the Assistant Commissioner, Dibrugarh Division, indicating that several notices for personal hearing had been issued between November 2018 and July 2019, and pointed out that identical notices sent to 21 other assessees had been duly received by them.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the notices preceding the impugned recovery notice dated 04.01.2022 had in fact been served on the petitioner assessee.
  2. Whether a presumption of service could be drawn from the fact that identical notices sent to 21 other assessees were received by them.
  3. What relief was warranted in the absence of conclusive proof of service on either side.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No prior notices were ever served on the petitioner before the recovery proceeding was initiated under the impugned notice dated 04.01.2022.
  • In the absence of service of the underlying notices, the recovery proceeding could not validly proceed against the petitioner.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The GST Department produced records showing that notices for personal hearing were issued on multiple dates between 26.11.2018 and 18.07.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, GST, Dibrugarh.
  • It was pointed out that similar notices issued to 21 other assessees around the same time had all been received, and a presumption should therefore be drawn that the petitioner was also served.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court found that no acknowledgment-due cards evidencing service were available on record, and the Postal Department's tracking system could not assist as the records pertained to a period beyond six months and were unavailable.
  • In the circumstances, the material on record did not enable a conclusive finding either way on whether the notices were served on the petitioner.
  • Balancing the equities, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Dibrugarh on 01.04.2022, upon which a renewed notice containing the contents of the earlier notices would be issued.
  • The petitioner was to be given one week to reply, followed by a final hearing on 08.04.2022, after which the Assistant Commissioner would pass a reasoned order; if against the assessee, the recovery proceeding under the notice dated 04.01.2022 would be carried forward.
  • It was strictly provided that if the petitioner failed to appear on 01.04.2022, the authorities would be at liberty to proceed with recovery under the impugned notice without further reference to this order.

Important Clarification

  • Where the Department cannot produce acknowledgment-due cards or postal tracking evidence establishing actual service of notices, and the assessee denies receipt, the Court will not draw a conclusive presumption of service merely because similarly worded notices were received by other assessees.
  • In such cases of unresolved factual dispute over service, courts may adopt a balanced course of directing a renewed notice with a fresh opportunity to reply and be heard, rather than either quashing the recovery outright or upholding it.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — recovery of tax and related proceedings against a registered assessee, including issuance and service of notices prior to coercive recovery action.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the Assessee — the recovery proceeding was not quashed but kept in abeyance pending issuance of a renewed notice, fresh opportunity to reply, and a reasoned order after hearing.

Related Case Laws

No related case laws are available on this site at present for cross-reference on this specific point.

Case Details

  • Court: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
  • Case No.: WP(C)/1521/2022
  • CNR: GAHC010038432022
  • Case Title: Dabjit Gogoi vs Union of India & 2 Ors.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
  • Date of Order: 21.03.2022

Link to Download the Order

Click here to download the full order.

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.