Facts of the Case

M/S Singh Traders, a proprietorship firm, challenged a show cause notice dated 19.12.2023 (Form DRC-01) and the consequent order dated 29.04.2024 (Form DRC-07) demanding tax, interest and penalty of Rs 4,35,684/- each under the CGST and BGST Acts for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, which extended the limitation under Section 73(2) and (10) by invoking Section 168A, contending the extension was made without the requisite GST Council recommendation and after an earlier extension had already been granted vide Notification No. 13/2022-CT.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the assessment order was vitiated for want of the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
  2. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-CT extending limitation under Section 168A was valid (left open, not decided on merits).

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4), a defect already upheld in the petitioner's favour on identical facts in CWJC No. 18648 of 2024, decided on 09.01.2025.
  • The show cause notice itself was time-barred in view of Section 73 of the BGST/CGST Act, and the extending notification was ultra vires Section 168A.

Respondent's Arguments

  • After examining the judgment in CWJC No. 18648 of 2024, the State conceded that the present case is identically situated and did not oppose a similar order being passed.

Court Order / Findings

  • Without going into the merits of the underlying dispute or the challenge to Notification No. 56/2023-CT, the Court proceeded on the narrower and conceded ground of denial of personal hearing.
  • The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 for the period 2018-19 was set aside solely for want of personal hearing under Section 75(4), following the Division Bench's ruling in CWJC No. 18648 of 2024.
  • The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorised representative before passing fresh orders.
  • The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 30 June 2025, following which the Officer must pass orders within three months or the remaining limitation period, whichever is later.

Important Clarification

  • A demand order passed without affording the personal hearing mandated by Section 75(4) is liable to be set aside on that ground alone, without the Court needing to examine the substantive tax dispute or a notification challenge.
  • Where the State itself concedes that a case is factually identical to an already-decided precedent, courts will apply that ruling directly rather than re-litigating the point.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/BGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not involving fraud or suppression.
  • Section 75(4), CGST/BGST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of personal hearing.
  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 — power to extend time limits in special circumstances (challenge to Notification No. 56/2023-CT left open).

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee on the procedural ground — the order is set aside for denial of personal hearing and remitted for fresh adjudication, with the substantive challenge to the demand and the extending notification left open.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Patna; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1079 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey; Order dated 18.06.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/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.