2023 (12) TMI 1280 - HC - GST

Demand of GST u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017 - input mismatch between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A statement - Assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of communication - HELD THAT - The main grievance of the petitioner is that the person/consultant, viz., Mr. Paneerselvam and Mr.Sivakumar, who were engaged by the petitioner for filing the returns passed away on 30.04.2019 and 05.02.2022 respectively and hence the petitioner was not in a position to know about the impugned proceedings initiated against them and the consequential orders and hence, the petitioner was not able to file appropriate application and appear before the authorities concerned and put forth their case by way of reply. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to agitate their case before the Appellate Authority by way of Appeal, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which case, the authorities concerned shall entertain the same without insisting upon limitation aspect, if any and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the initiation of impugned proceedings due to input mismatch between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A statement, communication regarding the proceedings sent to deceased staff members, petitioner's lack of awareness leading to bank account attachment, and the remedy available to the petitioner to appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Initiation of Impugned Proceedings:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings dated 12.04.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020 under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017. The proceedings were initiated due to an input mismatch between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A statement. The petitioner claimed that communications were sent to a deceased staff member's mobile number and email address, resulting in the petitioner's lack of awareness of the proceedings until the bank account was attached.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned proceedings as communications were directed to deceased individuals responsible for filing returns. On the other hand, the Government Advocate (Tax) contended that communication was sent to the contact details provided by the petitioner, and it was the petitioner's responsibility to engage another accountant after the demise of the previous ones. The Government Advocate suggested that the petitioner should appeal before the Appellate Authority if aggrieved by the impugned orders.

Court's Decision:
After considering the submissions, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of awareness due to the demise of staff members responsible for filing returns. The petitioner expressed satisfaction if granted liberty to appeal before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The Court directed the authorities to entertain the appeal without insisting on the limitation aspect and to dispose of it after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.