Case Law Details
Imperial Shipping Service Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside a GST assessment order, emphasizing the necessity for tax authorities to consider the replies of assessees to notices issued in Form GST ASMT-10. This judgment arose from the case between Imperial Shipping Service and the Assistant Commissioner (ST), highlighting critical procedural adherence in GST assessments.
Detailed Analysis
Case Background
The petitioner, Imperial Shipping Service, challenged an original order dated November 20, 2023. This order was the culmination of a tax assessment process initiated by a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 issued on April 20, 2023. The petitioner responded to this notice on May 25, 2023, explaining the non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to credit notes issued by the supplier being duly reflected in their returns.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner contended that despite responding to the notice in Form GST ASMT-10, the tax authorities proceeded without considering their reply. The petitioner argued that their response, submitted in Form ASMT-11, should have been integral to the assessment process. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the issue was related to the net ITC value, which was correctly reported in their annual return.
Respondent’s Stand
The Additional Government Pleader, Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, represented the tax authorities. He argued that the tax assessment was confirmed due to the petitioner’s failure to reverse the ITC and respond to the show cause notice, implying procedural compliance on the authorities’ part.
Court’s Observation and Ruling
The court scrutinized the impugned order and observed a significant procedural lapse: the petitioner’s reply to the initial notice was not considered. Paragraph 12 of the order revealed that the confirmation of the tax proposal was primarily due to the alleged non-response of the petitioner, despite the petitioner having submitted a reply.
The court underscored the importance of considering the assessee’s reply to ensure a fair assessment process. Ignoring such replies undermines the principles of natural justice and due process.
Consequently, the Madras High Court ruled the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside. The case was remanded for reconsideration, with directions for the tax authorities to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner, including a personal hearing, before issuing a fresh order.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to meticulously adhere to procedural requirements, particularly the consideration of assessee replies to notices. It underscores the judicial emphasis on procedural fairness and the protection of taxpayer rights.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision in Imperial Shipping Service Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) serves as a pivotal reminder of the importance of procedural integrity in tax assessments. By setting aside the GST assessment order due to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s reply, the court has reinforced the principle of natural justice. This case highlights the critical role of judicial oversight in ensuring fair and equitable tax administration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order in original dated 20.11.2023 is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Upon scrutiny of the petitioner’s returns, a notice in Form GST ASMT 10 was issued to the petitioner on 20.04.2023. The petitioner replied thereto on 25.05.2023. By asserting that the subsequent notice was not brought to the notice of the petitioner by the accountant concerned, the petitioner states that he was unable to respond to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings. The impugned order was issued in the above facts and circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the notice in Form ASMT 10 and the reply thereto. By pointing out that the tax proposal pertains to alleged non reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of credit notes issued by the supplier, learned counsel submitted that only the net value of ITC, after reducing therefrom the value of the credits notes, was reflected in the “All Other ITC” column. She further submits that this was also duly reflected in the annual return filed by the petitioner. Although the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, learned counsel contends that the reply in Form ASMT 11 should have been taken into account.
4. Mr. T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the tax proposal was confirmed since the petitioner failed to reverse the ITC and also did not reply to the show cause notice.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that the notice in Form ASMT 10 is recorded therein. However, the reply of the petitioner thereto was not taken into account. Consequently, as is evident from paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the tax proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the notices or attend personal hearing. Since the petitioner’s reply to the notice in Form ASMT 10 was not taken into consideration in the impugned order, such order is unsustainable.
6. For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
