Wrong citation of legal provisions does not invalidate proceedings if actions conform to the appropriate statute; however, the right to a hearing is a mandatory requirement.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Taking into account the issue involved in the present writ petition, this Court, with the consent of the parties, takes up the instant writ petition for disposal at the Motion stage itself.

3. The materials on record show that the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On 25.07.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the financial year 2024–25 under Section 73 (1) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the State Act”), wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had shown Rs. 1,90,77,696/- as the turnover in GSTR-3B, whereas the TDS turnover as per GSTR-7 was Rs. 2,94,55,917/- and as such, there was a suppressed turnover of Rs. 1,03,78,220.40. It was further mentioned that, in view of the suppressed turnover, the petitioner was required to show cause on or before 24.08.2025 as to why tax, interest, and penalty should not be levied under of the State Act.

4. At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the notice could not have been issued under Section 73 of the State Act, as the allegations therein pertain to suppressed turnover and, as such, the Respondent Authorities did not have the authority to pass the order under Section 74A of the State Act.

5. It is a settled principle of law that mere wrong quoting of a provision would not nullify an action if the contents initiating the action and the action so taken are in consonance.

6. In the instant case, it is apparent from the show cause notice that, taking into account that the steps were being taken in respect to the financial year 2024–25, the notice ought to have been issued under Section 74A of the State Act. The contents of the notice, however, make it very clear that the case falls within the ambit of Section 74A of the State Act. Under such circumstances, the mere quoting of Section 73 of the State Act in the notice would not nullify the entire proceedings.

7. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner did not file any reply and, accordingly, vide an order dated 15.09.2025, the impugned order was passed under Section 74A(5) of the State Act.

8. The petitioner has alleged that, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had not submitted a reply, it was then also incumbent upon the Respondent Authorities to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, as it is the mandate of Section 75 (4) of the State Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the decision of this Court in the case ofConstruction Catalysers Private Limited Vs. The State of Assam & Others, (2025) 2 GLR 85 wherein, at paragraph No. 28, this Court categorically held that even in a case where no reply is filed, the proper officer can pass an adverse order only after providing an opportunity of hearing.

9. This Court has also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who submitted that the petitioner knew about the said show cause notice and failed to submit a reply. As such, the petitioner cannot assail the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 by filing a writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the State Act and the petitioner having not ava