Tvl. Mohanasundaram Senthilvelu Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that impugned order confirming demand u/s. 73 of the CGST Act and issuing bank attachment notice set aside as order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, order held as passed in violation of principles of nature justice.
Facts- Vide the present petition, the petitioner alleges that the proceedings initiated u/s. 61 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2018-2019, resulted in a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22.12.2021, for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.4,82,703/- in both SGST and CGST.
A subsequent Demand Notice u/s. 73, issued on 28.02.2022, was followed by a Reminder Notice in November 2023, which contained an incorrect reference number. Despite the 1st respondent’s system-generated Order dropping the assessment on 2/7 28.04.2024, another Form GST ASMT-12 was issued on 15.08.2024, accepting the petitioner’s reply. Issuing a Bank Attachment Notice based on dropped proceedings is illegal and in violation of Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, as the respondent failed to properly set out the facts, making the proceedings contrary to natural justice and time-barred.
Conclusion- Held that the intimations and notices were uploaded in the ‘Additional Notices’ tab instead of the ‘Notices’ tab, and the petitioner, lacking computer knowledge, had entrusted this duty to a local tax consultant who, due to poor health, failed to notice the same. She further contends that the petitioner, having only discovered the notices belatedly, submitted a reply explaining that the mismatch was due to the supplier belatedly filing monthly returns, paying tax under B2C instead of B2B, which was verified through a letter from the supplier and copies of the monthly returns. However, the belated reply was not considered. Thus, the impugned order was passed without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to submit oral or written submissions, violating the principles of natural justice.
