Vijayalakshmi Supplyer Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The order under GST law must offer a personal hearing if requested or if adverse tax proposals are made. Failure to do so invalidates the order.
Introduction: In the case of Vijayalakshmi Supplier Vs State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court scrutinized the procedural adherence in GST demand orders, emphasizing the necessity of granting a personal hearing. The court’s decision to set aside the order underlines the importance of statutory compliance, ensuring taxpayers’ rights are protected.
Detailed Analysis:
Background: The petitioner, Vijayalakshmi Supplier, faced allegations of under-declaring output tax and claiming excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). A show-cause notice was issued on 27.12.2023, citing these defects. The petitioner responded on 16.02.2024, clarifying the turnover discrepancy due to an inadvertent duplication of a bill and asserting that only eligible ITC was claimed for building materials.
Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner contended that the GST demand order dated 22.04.2024 was issued without offering a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the applicable GST enactments. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse rendered the order invalid.
Respondent’s Argument: The Additional Government Pleader, T.N.C. Kaushik, representing the State Tax Officer, acknowledged that the petitioner’s reply was considered. However, he asserted that the petitioner had opted out of a personal hearing in their reply dated 16.02.2024.
