Case Law Details
Jose Bone Products Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The recent judgment by the Madras High Court in the case of Jose Bone Products vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) sheds light on a significant dispute related to the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The petitioner, engaged in the business of supplying bone meal, challenged an order issued by the 1st respondent, demanding GST on imported goods. The crux of the matter lies in the misconception that the bone meal was wrongly considered as imported timber.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner contended that they never imported any materials and solely operated in the bone meal business. The 1st respondent issued a notice, seeking details of allegedly imported goods, and subsequently passed an order on 13.10.2021 without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. Another notice dated 12.07.2022 demanded tax for the value of the purportedly imported goods.
The petitioner argued that the 1st respondent misunderstood their business, wrongly assuming timber importation. Despite the notice, the petitioner’s claim of exemption from VAT duty for bone meal was overlooked. The Madras High Court noted a violation of natural justice as the order was passed without a personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The court, recognizing the misconception in the impugned order, emphasized that any order should follow a personal hearing. In light of the erroneous assumption about timber importation, the court set aside the order dated 13.10.2021. The attached notice issued based on this order was lifted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
