Chettiar Stores Vs Deputy State Tax Officer
Date: March 12, 2024
Subject Matter
Right to a personal hearing is integral to the principles of natural justice, regardless of the taxpayer’s engagement with digital platforms
Summary
The case law involves the cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration and subsequent dispute regarding the cancellation. The taxpayer claimed that they did not have access to the GST portal and were not acquainted with digital resources. The court held that the taxpayer should be provided with an opportunity to contest the tax demand and that the cancellation order was quashed, subject to the condition that the taxpayer remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within a specified period. The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness in tax administration and the right to a personal hearing, regardless of the taxpayer's engagement with digital platforms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 22.08.2023 is the subject of challenge in the writ petition. The petitioner was a registered person engaged in the business of retail and wholesale trading of wheat, rye flour, corn flour and other cereals. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with effect from 01.04.2020. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that she was not accessing the GST portal. Pursuant to a show cause notice dated 06.07.2023, the impugned order was issued on 22.08.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not have access to the GST portal and was, in any event, not acquainted with the use of computer resources. She also submits that the impugned proceedings were not preceded by a notice in Form ASMT-10. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for re-consideration.
3. Mr. V. Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities and that this is evident on examining the impugned order. He also submits that the petitioner received multiple notices after the cancellation of the GST registration and that it is not tenable to contend that the petitioner did not have access to the GST portal.
4. The admitted position is that the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. As a consequence, at a minimum, the petitioner had little reason to monitor the GST portal. The assessment order indicates clearly that the petitioner was not heard although it appears that personal hearings were offered to the petitioner. The petitioner also agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
5. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand. Solely for this reason, the impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within a 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 dated 06.07.2023 within the aforementioned period. Subject to the receipt of the petitioner’s reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the assessing officer 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 two months. costs.
6. W.P.No.6319 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.7022 and 7024 of 2024 are closed.