GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Lack of Proper Service and Opportunity to Respond; Matter Remanded on payment of 25% of disputed tax
Issue: Whether a GST assessment order is valid when the show cause notice and the order itself were not properly served on the assessee, preventing them from participating in the proceedings.
Facts:
- The revenue authorities conducted a surprise inspection of the assessee’s premises and found discrepancies in their GST returns and e-way bills.
- A notice in Form DRC-01A and a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 were issued to the assessee.
- The assessee claimed that these notices and the subsequent assessment order were only uploaded on the GST portal and not served through other means like registered post.
- The assessee was unable to access the portal and participate in the proceedings, leading to an ex-parte assessment order.
Decision:
- The court acknowledged that the assessee was not properly served with the notices and did not have an opportunity to respond.
- The assessee expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a chance to present their objections with supporting documents.
- The court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority.
Key Takeaways:
- This case highlights the importance of proper service of notices and orders in GST proceedings.
- Merely uploading documents on the GST portal may not be considered sufficient service, especially if it prevents the assessee from participating in the proceedings.
- The decision emphasizes the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, ensuring that assessees are given a proper opportunity to respond and defend themselves before an assessment order is passed.
- The court’s decision to provide the assessee with another opportunity to respond while also requiring a partial deposit of the disputed tax demonstrates a balanced approach to resolving tax disputes.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Tvl. Saras Electricals
v.
State Tax Officer
Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
W.P.No.33571 of 2024
W.M.P. Nos. 36359 and 36360 of 2024
W.M.P. Nos. 36359 and 36360 of 2024
NOVEMBER 15, 2024
M. Hariharan for the Petitioner. T.N.C. Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the respondent relating to the assessment year 2021-2022.
2. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken for disposal at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner is a dealer in Electrical and Electronic items and registered under Goods and Services Act, 2017. During the relevant period, the petitioner had filed its return and paid appropriate taxes. Surprise inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 18.07.2023 and 19.07.2023, the following defects were noticed:
| (i) | List of E-way Bills generated for outward supply without actual movement of goods using FAKE vehicle numbers. |
| (ii) | Difference between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A |
| (iii) | Interest for RCM |
3.1. Subsequently, notice was issued in Form DRC-01A to the petitioner on 07.02.2023 through GST Portal, followed by a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01, dated 10.10.2023 along with an opportunity of personal hearings dated 07.11.2023, 15.12.2023 & 22.02.2024. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor paid the tax amount. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed confirming the proposals.
4. The impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal. It was further submitted that the petitioner was unable to access the common portal and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.
5. The issues that arise for consideration in the impugned order is the aforesaid discrepancies. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the aforesaid discrepancies.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables v. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
7. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., two weeks and four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.