Orders passed without considering evidence submitted by the taxpayer are set aside.

Issue: Whether GST demand orders passed under Section 74 (involving fraud, misstatement, or suppression) are valid when the revenue authorities fail to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.

Facts:

The assessee submitted voluminous documents, including invoices, to demonstrate tax payments made in other states for supplies effected outside Tamil Nadu.
The revenue authorities passed orders under Section 74 without considering the documents filed by the assessee.

Decision:

The court held that the impugned orders were passed without applying proper consideration to the material on record.
The orders were set aside, and the assessee was granted liberty to treat them as show cause notices.
The assessee was allowed to submit a fresh reply with documentary evidence within two weeks.

Key Takeaways:

This case highlights the importance of considering all relevant evidence submitted by the assessee before passing orders under Section 74 of the GST Act.
Failure to consider the evidence violates the principles of natural justice and can lead to the setting aside of the orders.
The decision emphasizes the need for tax authorities to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence and provide a reasoned order, ensuring fairness and transparency in GST proceedings.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Total Environment Building Systems (P.) Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

W.P. Nos.33751, 33757, 33760, 33763 and 33767 of 2024
W.M.P.Nos.36578, 36542, 36548, 36557, 36556, 36563, 36566, 36569, 36572 and 36574 of 2024

NOVEMBER 21, 2024

S. Muthuvenkatraman, for the Petitioner. Rajnish Pathiyil, Sr. Panel Counsel and T.N.C. Kaushik, Addl. Govet. Pleader for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This batch of five writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed under Section 74 of the GST Act on the premise that the impugned orders have been passed without taking into account the documents filed in support of the replies submitted.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and supply of doors and windows (furnitures and parts thereof) and registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the relevant period viz., 2018-19 to 2022-23, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate tax. While so, the petitioner’s place of business was inspected on 26.10.2023 pursuant to the authorization by the Joint Commissioner (State Tax) (Intelligence), Hosur in terms of Section 67(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017. During the scrutiny of the records available in the GST portal, it was inter alia found that there were certain discrepancies between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B.

3. Pursuant thereto, for all the assessment years, a notice in GST DRC-01A was issued on 23.03.2024, followed by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 on 08.05.2024. Further, personal hearings were offered on 12.06.2024 and 21.06.2024. In response, the petitioner had filed its detailed reply on 28.06.2024 along with supporting documents inter alia including documents raised in respect of supplies which forms the subject matter of the Show Cause Notice raised by its units / branches in other States. It was also indicated that taxes have been remitted in respect of supplies proposed in the Show Cause Notice as liable under the TNGST Act, in various other States.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents filed were voluminous and as a matter of fact, the petitioner had also provided invoices to demonstrate that the supplier had remitted tax in the appropriate State. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order pertains to supplies which were effected outside the State and thus without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B was explained with the support of invoices and other relevant documents. However, the impugned order has been passed on the premise that the petitioner has failed to file relevant documentary evidence. It is also submitted that the impugned order does not even deal with the material furnished by the petitioner, which runs into several hundred pages and the condensed version of the same was placed before this Court for consideration, which itself exceeds four hundred pages. Nevertheless, the impugned order proceeds to confirm the proposal on the premise that no valid supportive documents were filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they had, in fact, produced the financial invoices raised in the respective States, which disclose that taxes have, in fact, been remitted in respective States i.e., States other than Tamil Nadu. Thus, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind to the material on record.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that they would re-examine the issue and would also submit that the petitioner may once again produce the entire documents which they intend to rely upon.

7. In view thereof, the impugned orders are set-aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to treat the impugned orders as Show Cause Notice and submit its reply along with documentary evidence within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the impugned orders stands restored.

8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.