2021 (8) TMI 347 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - certain discrepancies in the invoices accompanied by e-way bills - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of SRI MUNIAPPA STEELS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) SINGANALLUR NORTH CIRCLE COIMBATORE 2021 (5) TMI 262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that The conclusion in the assessment order, in fact, mentions the statement recorded by the third party dealer and in the light of the fact that this statement forms the basis of assessment, the petitioner ought to have been granted opportunity to peruse the statement and put forth its objections to the same. This has not been done, constitutes principles of violation of natural justice. The impugned order is set aside. Let the statement and other particulars relied upon by the Officer in the impugned orders of assessment be supplied to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing to put forth its submission and also file objections. Upon consideration thereof, speaking orders shall be passed by the Officer within a period of six (6) weeks from date of first hearing. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to three orders of assessment under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

In this case, the petitioner challenged three assessment orders for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent acknowledged that the challenge to these orders aligns with a previous judgment in W.P.No.10489 of 2021. In that judgment, it was highlighted that the Assessing Authority had noted discrepancies in the invoices accompanied by e-way bills. The petitioner had requested a copy of the statement relied upon by the respondent, which was not provided. The assessment order was based on a statement recorded by a third party dealer, which the petitioner was not given the opportunity to review or object to, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the Officer was directed to supply the statement and other particulars to the petitioner within three weeks. The petitioner would then have the chance to present submissions and file objections before a final speaking order is issued within six weeks.

The court found similarities in facts and legal aspects between this case and the previous matter, leading to the same order being passed for these assessments as well. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Officer was instructed to provide the necessary documents to the petitioner within three weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner would be granted a hearing to present submissions and objections, following which speaking orders would be issued within six weeks from the first hearing. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.