Tvl. Sam Enterprises v. State Tax Officer,
BACKGROUND
The petitioner, a proprietary firm, was subjected to GST proceedings for the tax period 2019-20 by the State Tax Officer, Arumbakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai. The respondent-authority uploaded all notices and communications solely on the GST online portal. The petitioner remained unaware of these notices and consequently could not file a reply within the stipulated time. Taking advantage of this lapse, the respondent passed a demand order dated 27.08.2024 under Section 73, along with a summary in Form GST DRC-07, without granting any opportunity of personal hearing. Further, the tax authority had already recovered more than 80% of the total disputed tax demand of Rs. 2,12,546/- from the petitioner's bank account through attachment. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, challenging the impugned order on twin grounds: (i) contravention of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, and (ii) violation of principles of natural justice.
COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)
Para 7: "In the cases on hand, it is clear that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits."
FINAL VERDICT
The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file reply/objections with supporting documents within three weeks from receipt of the order. The respondent was directed to thereafter issue a 14-day clear notice fixing a personal hearing date and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs were awarded.
👍 In favour of the Assessee
Other Case Law
Sh. Raghav Agarwal & Connected Matters v. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Delhi North & Ors.
Whether Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 permits blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) in excess of the credit actually available therein, thereby creating a negative balance.
BackgroundMultiple taxpayers registered under CGST Act/DGST Act filed writ petit...
Read MoreSharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) & Another
Appeal – Limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 – whether uploading of order on GST portal amounts to communication for the purpose of limitation – Sections 107 and 169 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 1
Facts:The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and sho...
Read MoreShanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Tax Department
Denial of Input Tax Credit to purchasing dealer due to non-payment of tax by selling dealer under DVAT (Section involved: Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004)
Facts :The appellant, a registered dealer, purchased goods from registered selli...
Read More