Tokyo Zairyo (India) Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner
Date: April 1, 2024
Subject Matter
Reply cannot be disregarded merely for non attendance of personal hearing by the taxpayer
Summary
The case revolves around a challenge against an assessment order dated 29.12.2023, where the petitioner's reply was disregarded following an audit under applicable GST enactments. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of their disregarded reply, which was labeled as unauthorized solely due to the petitioner's inability to attend the scheduled personal hearing. The court found that the impugned order was unsustainable due to the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply, and consequently set aside the order, remanding the matter for reconsideration. The court emphasized the necessity of providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner’s reply was disregarded. Pursuant to an audit under Section 65 of applicable GST enactments, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.09.2023. The petitioner replied to the audit report on 28.11.2023. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 29.12.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that the petitioner’s reply was disregarded by describing the reply as an unauthorised reply. She further submits that the reply was disregarded merely because the petitioner was unable to attend the scheduled personal hearing.
3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents. He points out that the petitioner failed to produce a separate balance sheet and profit & loss account for the Tamil Nadu branch. In view thereof, he submits that the tax demand was confirmed.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that similar findings were recorded in respect of each audit observation dealt with therein. By way of illustration, the finding in respect of audit observation no.1 pertaining to turnover reconciliation is set out below:
The unauthorised reply of the tax payer is not accepted as the tax payer has not appeared for personal hearing to sign the reply or to explain their contention. Moreover, the conclusion of Audit Officer is confirmed.
Thus, it is clear that the petitioner’s reply was disregarded by categorising such reply as an unauthorised reply. It is unclear as to why the reply was described as unauthorised. In any event, the impugned order is vitiated by non consideration of the petitioner’s reply. Consequently, such order is unsustainable.
5. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions are left open to the petitioner in course of remanded proceedings.
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.