Case Law Details
AMZ International Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In AMZ International Vs State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order dated 22nd September 2023, citing breaches of natural justice and procedural lapses. The petitioner, AMZ International, challenged the order on the grounds that their reply to a show cause notice, which included crucial documents like bank reconciliation statements and a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, was not considered by the tax authorities. Moreover, the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Although the respondent’s counsel argued that three reminders had been issued after the show cause notice, the court found that these reminders were sent before the petitioner’s reply dated 22nd August 2023. The court concluded that the respondent failed to properly evaluate the submitted documents and denied the petitioner a personal hearing, thus rendering the order unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to issue a new order after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, to be completed within two months. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 22.09.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
2. Upon receipt of a show cause notice dated 04.03.2023, the petitioner replied on 22.08.2023 by enclosing several documents, including statements of bank reconciliation, Chartered Accountant’s Certificate, etc. The impugned order was issued in these circumstances on 22.09.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the petitioner’s reply and pointed out that the said reply and the documents annexed thereto were not taken into consideration while issuing the impugned order. She also points out that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner in violation of sub-section 4 of Section 75 of applicable GST enactments.
4. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned order, he points out that three reminders were issued after issuing the show cause notice. Therefore, he contends that principles of natural justice were complied with.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that all three reminders were prior to the petitioner’s reply dated 22.08.2023. The said reply is on record and the petitioner has annexed several documents thereto. In the impugned order, the respondent has not duly examined such reply especially the documents annexed thereto. Besides, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, no personal hearing was not provided and the failure to do so contravenes sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the applicable GST enactments. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.
6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. Upon providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. P.No.9858 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
Author Bio
