Fazari Multicuisine Restaurant Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court, in Fazari Multicuisine Restaurant vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), set aside a GST demand order for the assessment year 2019-20 due to improper service of notices. The petitioner, registered under the GST Act, had filed returns and paid applicable taxes. However, discrepancies were found in various GST filings, leading to the issuance of notices. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of these notices since they were only uploaded under the “View Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal rather than being formally served. Consequently, they did not get an opportunity to respond or present their case. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where a similar issue led to a remand, subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.
The High Court found merit in the petitioner’s claim and ruled that the order was issued without ensuring proper service. The court set aside the demand order, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority while imposing a condition that the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. If the payment is made, the demand order will be treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to file objections. Any recovery actions, including bank account attachment, would be withdrawn upon compliance. However, failure to deposit the required amount or submit objections within the stipulated time would result in the restoration of the impugned order. The judgment underscores the importance of proper procedural compliance in tax assessments.
