2023 (9) TMI 1050 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - respondent without serving physical notice / order the impugned order is passed which is against the Section 169(1)(b) of the Act - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed without serving notice as per section 169(1)(b) and without taking into account that the petitioner is having three business verticals. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. The respondent is directed to grant opportunity to the petitioner, preferably grant personal hearing and thereafter pass orders. The petitioner shall produce all the evidences and documents before the respondent. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Quashing of impugned assessment order u/s 169(1)(b) for assessment year 2017-2018 due to violation of principles of natural justice and failure to consider annual returns in GSTR-9 and Auditor's statement for three business verticals.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice and failure to consider relevant documents

The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the respondent failed to consider the annual returns in GSTR-9 and Auditor's statement filed in GSTR-9C for the three business verticals under the same PAN. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain these documents to the authorities, which was not granted. Additionally, it was highlighted that the impugned order was passed without serving physical notice or order, contravening Section 169(1)(b) of the Act.

Judgment:
The High Court of Madras, after due consideration, found merit in the petitioner's contentions. It held that the impugned order was indeed passed without serving notice as required by Section 169(1)(b) and without taking into account the existence of three business verticals under the petitioner's PAN. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the impugned order. The respondent was directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and to consider all evidences and documents presented by the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent was instructed to complete the assessment proceedings within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order.

Outcome:
In light of the above findings, the Writ Petition was allowed by the Madras High Court. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.