JBT (Jai Bharat Travels) vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST), The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), The Assistant Commissioner (ST), State of Andhra Pradesh, The Union of India

The petitioner is contesting the Assessment, Penalty & Interest order issued by the 1st respondent under the SGST and CGST Acts 2017 for the tax periods spanning from 2017-18 to 2019-20 (up to November 2019). The petitioner alleges that the order lacks jurisdiction, authority, violates established law, and disregards principles of natural justice. The petitioner seeks to annul the order.

The petitioner’s primary argument revolves around the absence of a personal hearing before the earlier Assessment Order dated 24.06.2020. This omission prompted the petitioner to file a case (W.P.No.22198/2020) where the court, on 15.03.2021, directed the 1st respondent to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and issue a revised Assessment Order.

The crux of the petitioner’s contention lies in the procedural irregularities leading to the Assessment Order. They assert that the absence of a personal hearing undermines their right to present their case effectively and violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that they were not given a fair opportunity to address concerns or present evidence before the issuance of the Assessment Order.

Furthermore, the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction and authority of the 1st respondent to issue the Assessment, Penalty & Interest order. They argue that the order was made without proper legal basis and contravenes established laws governing taxation procedures.

In seeking the setting aside of the order, the petitioner aims to rectify what they perceive as procedural injustices and legal irregularities. They request that the court invalidate the Assessment, Penalty & Interest order dated 15.12.2022 and potentially remand the matter for reconsideration, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and legal procedure.

The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards in administrative actions, particularly in matters as significant as tax assessments. The petitioner’s challenge underscores the necessity for due process and the protection of individual rights within the realm of taxation law.

The petitioner is contesting an Assessment, Penalty & Interest order issued by the 1st respondent under the SGST and CGST Acts 2017 for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 (up to November 2019). The petitioner argues that the order lacks jurisdiction, authority, violates laws, and breaches principles of natural justice. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order.

The petitioner’s case unfolds as follows:

1.The petitioner previously contested an Assessment Order dated 24.06.2020, citing the absence of a personal hearing before its issuance. In W.P.No.22198/2020, the Court ordered on 15.03.2021 to remand the matter to the 1st respondent, directing them to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and issue a fresh Assessment Order on merits. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 was passed.

2.The petitioner operates passenger buses across various states including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry. The 1st respondent allegedly relied on information from M/s Abhibus and incorrectly assessed the petitioner’s tax liability based on the total turnover across all four states. The petitioner argues that according to statute, the 1st respondent should only assess tax based on turnover in Andhra Pradesh, while turnovers in other states are subject to tax under their respective statutes. Hence, the Assessment Order is deemed unsustainable.

3.Additionally, the petitioner contends that the Joint Commissioner (ST), Chittoor, issued an authorization in Form GST INS-01 to the 2nd respondent solely for inspection/auditing purposes, not for assessment. The petitioner claims that a separate authorization is required for assessment, which was not granted to the 2nd respondent. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent allegedly lacked the requisite authorization for assessment.

4.In summary, the petitioner asserts that the Assessment, Penalty & Interest order lacks jurisdiction, breaches natural justice principles, and misinterprets tax statutes regarding multi-state operations. They argue that the assessment process was flawed due to the absence of a proper authorization for assessment. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order.

Download PDF:
JBT (Jai Bharat Travels)

For Reference Visit:
Andhra Pradesh High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case  Law