2025 (7) TMI 778 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - impugned order has preceded the notice in DRC 01 which was issued to the petitioner through GST portal on 25.11.2024 - petitioner failed to respond to same - HELD THAT - Although there is variance between the amounts specified in the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 and the recovery notice dated 30.05.2025 the facts remains that the petitioner has not taken advantage of the adjudication mechanism prescribed under the provisions of the respective GST enactments and Rules made thereunder. Under similar circumstances this Court has come to the rescue of the persons like petitioner by quashing the impugned order on terms. There is no reason to take a different view in the present case. Question of relegating the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner at this stage is not plausible as the petitioner has slept over the rights and the appeal cannot be directed to be entertained by the Appellate Authority - the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also file a reply within such time to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024 by treating the impugned order as addendum. If the petitioner complies with above stipulations the impugned order shall stand quashed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging the impugned Assessment Order dated 21.02.2025 for AY 2020-21. The petitioner failed to respond to the statutory notice (DRC 01) issued via the GST portal on 25.11.2024 and subsequent reminders, claiming lack of notice. The Court noted a discrepancy between the demand confirmed in the impugned order (Rs. 19,69,048) and the recovery notice amount (Rs. 16,19,496), holding that the order was passed in "gross violation of the principles of natural justice."Relying on precedents including Singh Enterprises v. CCE (2008) 3 SCC 70 and CCE & Customs v. Hongo India (2009) 5 SCC 791, the Court rejected relegation to the Appellate Commissioner, as the petitioner had "slept over the rights." However, adopting a consistent approach, the Court quashed the impugned order on terms: the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice treating the impugned order as an addendum. Upon compliance, the impugned order stands quashed, and the respondent must pass fresh orders on merits within 3 months, ensuring the petitioner is heard.Failure to comply authorizes the respondent to proceed as if the petition was dismissed. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.