Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 514 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - validity of assessment order - present writ petition was filed after a bank attachment notice was issued - HELD THAT - The documents on record include the notice in Form ASMT 10, the intimation and the show cause notice. As a registered person under applicable GST enactments, the explanation of the petitioner that he was unaware of proceedings is not convincing. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the tax demand pertains to discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. It is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to explain the discrepancy after putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 25.10.2023 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the same period, the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 07.08.2023. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the first respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. As a consequence of the impugned assessment order being set aside, the bank attachment is raised. The petition is disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to assessment order for lack of reasonable opportunity to contest tax demand in the case of a petitioner engaged in retail and wholesale trading of leather apparels. Summary: The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 25.10.2023, claiming they did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand. The petitioner, involved in the business of retail and wholesale trading of leather apparels, received a notice in Form ASMT 10 on 16.06.2023, followed by an intimation on 10.05.2023 and a show cause notice on 07.08.2023. The petitioner alleged unawareness of these proceedings due to reliance on a consultant for GST compliances. Subsequently, a bank attachment notice was issued on 13.03.2024, prompting the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, a part of a limited liability partnership established in 2019, lacked familiarity with GST compliance procedures. Discrepancies in the amounts specified in the ASMT 10 notice, show cause notice, and the impugned order were highlighted. The petitioner expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. The Government Advocate representing the first respondent contended that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to contest the tax demand, as reflected in the impugned order. The documents on record included the ASMT 10 notice, intimation, and show cause notice. Despite the petitioner's claim of unawareness, it was noted that the tax demand related to a discrepancy between GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A. The court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitioner to explain the discrepancy after being put on terms. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 was set aside with the condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and, upon satisfaction of the remittance, the first respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. The bank attachment was lifted as a result of setting aside the assessment order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed accordingly.
|