Case Law Details
Hajabandenawas Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Hajabandenawas vs. State Tax Officer, where it allowed the petitioner, Hajabandenawas, a second chance to submit documents addressing discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns. This decision, dated October 12, 2023, highlights the court’s approach towards ensuring fair treatment and due process in tax compliance matters under the CGST/TNGST Act.
Background of the Case: The writ petition was filed by Hajabandenawas challenging the order dated October 12, 2023, issued by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner was initially served a Form GST ASMT-10 notice on August 16, 2023, followed by a Form GST DRC-01 notice on September 22, 2023, which scheduled a personal hearing on October 10, 2023. The core issue was a mismatch between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Argument: Hajabandenawas argued that they had submitted all necessary details to the tax authorities, but these were not considered. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the order was issued without providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the discrepancies with documentary evidence, which was not possible under the original proceedings.
Respondent’s Argument: The Additional Government Pleader (Tax) representing the State Tax Officer claimed that no response was received from the petitioner following the notice. The respondent suggested that the petitioner should approach the appropriate authority with all relevant documents for a fresh review.
Court’s Observations and Decision: The court, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, noted that the petitioner had expressed readiness to provide detailed documents explaining the discrepancies. In light of this, the court set aside the impugned order dated October 12, 2023, and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed Hajabandenawas to submit the required documents within two weeks and instructed the respondent to pass a new order within four weeks thereafter.
Conclusion
The judgment in Hajabandenawas vs. State Tax Officer underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that taxpayers receive a fair chance to present their cases, particularly in complex issues involving tax return discrepancies. By allowing a re-submission without the pre-deposit condition, the Madras High Court has set a precedent that could influence future cases, emphasizing the importance of due process and thorough examination of evidence in tax disputes. This decision is a reminder for both taxpayers and tax authorities to maintain meticulous records and communication to avoid procedural oversights.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 12.10.2023 vide proceedings in GSTIN/33AADFH2833D1ZY/2019-20, dated 12.10.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that originally the Form GST ASMT-10 notice was issued on 16.08.2023 and again Form GST DRC-01 was also sent to the petitioner on 22.09.2023, by mentioning the date of personal hearing on 10.10.2023. The facts arising out of this writ petition is that there is a mismatch with regard to the GSTR-1 and the GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act was issued by the first respondent confirming the proposal of tax, interest and penalty and directing the petitioner to pay the same on or before 10.01.2024. Though the petitioner contend that they have submitted all the details to the respondent, however, the first respondent has not considered the details furnished by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to putforth their defence. It is the contention of the petitioner that if an opportunity of personal hearing is granted, the petitioner will demonstrate with documentary evidence with regard to the discrepancies between the GSTR-1 statement and the GSTR-3B returns.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent did not receive any reply after the notice issued to the petitioner. Further, he contended that since there is difference in the returns submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for fresh consideration by furnishing all the details along with the requisite documents.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 issued on the ground of mismatch with regard to the GSTR-1 and the GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to submit all the documents along with proper explanation before the first respondent.
7. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is also directed to submit his reply along with all requisite documents before the first respondent for reconsideration within a period of two weeks. After considering the documentary evidence that may be submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent shall pass appropriate order thereof on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
