Case Law Details
Mohan Gokulraj Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that petitioner being unaware of initiation of proceedings are directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections by treating impugned assessment order as show cause notice.
Facts- The petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act. During the relevant period of 2018-19, on verification of the returns filed by the petitioner it was found that there was a discrepancy between ITC reported in Col.4A(2)(3) with that of RCM liability reported in Col.3.1(d) of GSTR-3B.
Accordingly, an intimation in ASMT-10 was issued on 14.09.2023 followed by a notice in Form DRC-01 on 05.04.2024 and personal hearing on 26.04.2024. However, the petitioner had not responded to any of the above notices / intimation and the impugned order came to be passed. Petitioner contested that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD, instead it had been uploaded in the “view additional notices” column in GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.
Conclusion- Held that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored. It was submitted that pursuant to the impugned order of assessment, recovery proceedings were initiated and bank accounts have been attached. In view of the order passed herein, the bank attachment shall be lifted forthwith on complying the above condition i.e., payment of 25% of disputed taxes within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the respondent in Reference No.ZD330424245753G on the premise that the same is made in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act. During the relevant period of 2018-19, the petitioner has filed the returns and paid appropriate taxes. However, on verification of the returns filed by the petitioner it was found that there was a discrepancy between ITC reported in Col.4A(2)(3) with that of RCM liability reported in Col.3.1(d) of GSTR-3B.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an intimation in ASMT-10 was issued on 14.09.2023 followed by a notice in Form DRC-01 on 05.04.2024 and personal hearing on 26.04.2024. However, the petitioner had not responded to any of the above notices / intimation and the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD, instead it had been uploaded in the “view additional notices” column in GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024, to submit that this court has remanded the matter back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 25% of the disputed taxes.
5. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored. It was submitted that pursuant to the impugned order of assessment, recovery proceedings were initiated and bank accounts have been attached. In view of the order passed herein, the bank attachment shall be lifted forthwith on complying the above condition i.e., payment of 25% of disputed taxes within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
