Case Law Details
Jose Paul Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The case of Jose Paul vs. State Tax Officer, as heard by the Kerala High Court, centers around a show cause notice and an assessment order issued to a registered dealer under the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Acts. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order due to a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and the absence of a hearing opportunity.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petition for Quashing: The petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the show cause notice (Ext.P3) and the assessment order (Ext.P5) issued by the 1st respondent.
2. Registered Dealer: The petitioner is a registered dealer under the SGST and CGST Acts. They had filed various GST returns, including GSTR-1 (statement of sales), GSTR-3B (monthly returns), and GSTR-9 (annual returns), along with the Reconciliation statement in GSTR-9C, which included audited financial statements for the year 2017-18.
3. Mismatch Identified: It was discovered that there was a mismatch between the data in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, prompting the issuance of a notice to the petitioner. A personal hearing date was set for 07.03.2022.
4. No Opportunity for Hearing: On the scheduled hearing date, the 1st respondent was on leave, and no further hearing notice was provided. Despite the absence of a hearing opportunity, the impugned order (Ext.P5) was passed based on the initial notice (Ext.P3).
5. Confirmation by Government Pleader: During the court proceedings, the Government Pleader confirmed that no hearing opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner, as required under Section 73 of the GST Act.
6. Court’s Decision: Considering the admitted facts, the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition. They set aside the impugned order (Ext.P5) and the notice (Ext.P3). The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 09.2023 at 11:00 a.m., bringing all relevant records, for the purpose of finalizing a fresh assessment order in compliance with the law.
Conclusion: In the case of Jose Paul vs. State Tax Officer, the Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of affording a hearing opportunity before passing an assessment order under the CGST Act. The court’s decision ensures that due process is followed and that taxpayers have the chance to present their case when discrepancies arise in GST filings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the show cause notice at Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 order completed by the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the SGST and CGST Acts. The petitioner filed a statement of sales in GSTR-1, monthly returns in GSTR-3B, and annual returns in GSTR-9, along with the Reconciliation statement in GSTR-9C with audited financial statements for the year 2017-18. It appears that there was a mismatch between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The petitioner was issued notice, and a personal hearing date was fixed on 07.03.2022.
2.1 However, on the said date, the 1st respondent was on leave, and no notice for further hearing was fixed. Without providing an opportunity for a hearing, the impugned order at Ext.P5 has been passed in pursuance of the Ext.P3 notice issued.
3. On the last date of listing of the writ petition, i.e., on 05.09.2023, learned Government Pleader was directed to have instructions on whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order in P5.
3.1 On instructions, Ms Rasmitha Ramachandran learned Government Pleader submits that no opportunity for a hearing was given to the petitioner as required under Section 73 of the GST Act.
4. Considering the aforesaid fact and admitted position, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order in Ext.P5 and the notice in Ext.P3 are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 09.2023 at 11.00 a.m. with all the records in his possession for finalising the fresh assessment order in accordance with the law.
