9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2023 which formed the basis for issuance of aforesaid impugned order of assessment and sought for quashmment of both orders dated 21.04.2023 and 29.06.2023 and consequently, for a mandamus, directing the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner's Appeal without insistence of pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax liability as per Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. The case of the petitioner in gist and kernel is as follows:- i) The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the respondent- Department under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, referred to as 'TNGST Act'). ii) Initially, the second respondent issued a notice dated 22.12.2022, pointing out certain discrepancies, to which, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 09.01.2023. The second respondent without considering the said reply, issued the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 (1st Hearing). The petitioner vide letter dated 05.05.2023 sought time to file reply to the show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 and filed reply on 30.05.2023. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a notice dated 16.06.2023 (II Hearing) fixing the date of pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed show cause notice, nothing has been discussed with regard to the points/defence raised/taken by the petitioner in their reply, dated 09.01.2023, except making vague statement that the petitioner did not furnish documentary evidence. ii) Secondly, the learned counsel contended that though the second respondent by virtue of impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 raised a demand of Rs. 103,68,32,380, the basis for such demand has not been mentioned anywhere in the show cause notice. The learned counsel also pointed out that the tax demanded in the show cause notice did not match with the tax demand in the discrepancies pointed by the second respondent in their earlier notice dated 22.12.2022. iii) Thirdly, the learned counsel contended that by way of impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2023, the petitioner has been called upon to submit their reply within 14 days i.e. 05.05.2023, however, the petitioner vide its letter dated 05.05.2023, sought time to file reply and filed the same on 30.05.2023, pursuant to which, the second respondent issued a notice on 16.06.2023 (II hearing) calling for petitioner's reply to be filed within 19.06.203 and fixing the date of hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with supportive documents is very limited, i.e. within 36 hours. 4.3 The learned counsel submitted even when the First Hearing notice, viz., the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 was issued, the petitioner was called upon to submit their reply within 14 days i.e. 05.05.2023, however, the petitioner requested for time and filed the reply on 30.05.2023 and insofar as second hearing notice dated 16.06.2023 is concerned, the petitioner was granted only three days to submit their reply on 19.06.2023 and to appear on 20.06.2023. Since the second hearing notice dated 16.06.2023, did not capture the fact that the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice, dated 21.04.2023, the petitioner again reiterated their submissions on 16.06.2023 and during the third notice of hearing dated 21.06.2023, viz., the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner was directed to appear on 23.06.2023 at 11.00 a.m. and it is for the first time, the second respondent listed the documents to be produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that impugned orders are not sustainable not only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.06.2023, which culminated in passing the assessment order dated 29.06.2023 whereby the proposals contained in the show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 was confirmed, it could be clearly seen that the respondent-Department have uploaded the notice through e-Portal on 21.06.2023 that too at 9.52 p.m. and fixed the date for personal hearing within 36 hours i.e. on 23.06.2023 and by means of the said order, for the first time, the petitioner was called upon to produce supportive documents in their defence. 7.1 Admittedly, the notice dated 21.06.2023 was not served on the petitioner by way of any physical mode and was only uploaded through online Portal on 21.06.2023, which falls on Wednesday, followed two working days, and unfortunately, the petitioner could not have access through the website on those days and happened to notice the same belatedly and the moment, the petitioner noticed the said notice dated 21.06.2023, they appeared before the respondent-Department on very next working day, i.e. Monday and requested time for production of documents. 7.2 Thus, it is clear that by means of the last so-called III Opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was granted only a short span of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is not satisfactory has not been set out clearly by the second respondent and rather, the second respondent has passed the impugned order, which is verbatim reproduction of the reply filed by the petitioner, which is in the form of Tabulated Columns, and in para No.15, under the heading 'Findings, the second respondent has stated that petitioner's reply without any supportive documents could not be synchronized with this Department SAS alerts in GST Portal and therefore, the proposals contained in the show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 is hereby confirmed. 10. In the light of the above narrated facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are wholly untenable not only on the ground of total violation of principles of natural justice but also on other grounds, including failure to pass a speaking order as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the learned Government Advocate has raised strong objection for granting any order, be it interim or final order, which would succour the petitioner, however, considering the fact that he has not taken a definite stand as regards the contention advanced by the petitioner, which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
