Case Law Details
M. B. Travels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of M. B. Travels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Madras High Court addressed the challenge against an order dated 20th November 2023 primarily on the grounds of denial of a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings leading to the impugned order because the notice and order were uploaded solely on the GST portal, without communication through other prescribed modes under Section 169 of the GST enactments.
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted several deficiencies in the order: firstly, the absence of a specified date for personal hearing both in the reference column and within the body of the order itself. It was argued that this omission deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to present their case. The petitioner, through counsel, offered to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for the matter to be remanded.
On behalf of the respondent, Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, the learned Government Advocate, accepted notice and pointed out that the impugned order followed a series of procedural steps including a notice in Form ASMT 10 dated 11th July 2023, a show cause notice issued on 18th August 2023, and multiple notices for personal hearings. The respondent argued that as a registered person under the GST enactments, the petitioner was obligated to monitor the GST portal regularly. Thus, the petitioner’s claim of ignorance regarding the proceedings was deemed unsatisfactory. The impugned order had confirmed the tax proposal due to the petitioner’s failure to respond to the show cause notice or participate in the proceedings.
After considering the arguments, the High Court observed that while the petitioner had a responsibility to monitor the GST portal, the absence of specific dates for personal hearing in the order raised legitimate concerns about procedural fairness. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 20th November 2023 and remanded the matter for reconsideration, with the condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. During this period, the petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice and provide relevant documents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
