Tvl. Gayatri Granites Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Date: April 22, 2024
Subject Matter
Taxpayer is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal on an ongoing basis
Summary
The case involves a petitioner engaged in the business of supplying granite, sandstone, and related products, challenging an order dated 16.08.2023 and a consequential demand notice dated 17.08.2023. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings as the notices and orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated through any other means. The confirmed tax proposal was based on a discrepancy between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. Despite opportunities provided, the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice and attend the personal hearing, leading to the tax demand being confirmed. However, the court recognized the petitioner’s right to natural justice and granted them an opportunity to contest the tax demand, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 16.08.2023 and the consequential demand notice dated 17.08.2023 are challenged in this writ petition on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying granite, sandstone and related products. Upon examining the returns of the petitioner, notice in Form ASMT 10 was issued on 17.02.2023. This was followed by intimation dated 25.03.2023 and show cause notice dated 20.06.2023. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 16.08.2023. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings since the notices and orders were uploaded in the “View additional notices and order” tab of the GST portal, but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to the mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. If provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, he submits that the petitioner would be in a position to explain the discrepancy. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
4. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. She points out that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities in the form of a notice in Form ASMT 10, an intimation and a show cause notice. She also points out that a personal hearing was offered on 30.06.2023.
5. As a registered person under applicable GST enactments, the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal on an ongoing basis. Therefore, the explanation provided by the petitioner is not entirely convincing. At the same time, it should be noticed that the tax demand was confirmed only because the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the show cause notice and attend the personal hearing. In the overall facts and circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand.
6. For reasons set out above, impugned order dated 16.08.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Upon receipt thereof and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
7. W.P.No.10674 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.11764 and 11766 of 2024 are closed.