There is total non-application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order of assessment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to be heard in person, before the order of assessment was made.
Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Assessment Orders – The petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned order of assessment dated 07.02.2020. The respondent after inspection, issued notice on 21.11.2019, pointing out discrepancies. On 12.12.2019, the respondent issued pre-assessment notice, proposing defects, by reiterating the earlier notice, proposed levy of penalty under Sections 74 and 125. On 07.02.2020, without considering the objections filed by the petitioner and without offering opportunity of personal hearing of being heard as contemplated under Sections 75(4), the respondent concluded the impugned ex-parte assessment, for the tax period 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned ex-part assessment orders of the respondent are ex-facie illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, no opportunity of PH as provided before passing a final order of assessment. The respondent counsel submitted that the appellate remedy is available to the petitioner to redress the grievance. The court observed that the impugned order of assessment has been passed on 07.02.2020, whereas PH has been given on 03.12.2020, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the respondent.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters back to the respondent to pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks.