9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 178 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - petitioner unable to reply to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings because such notice and order were only uploaded on the view additional notices and order tab of the GST portal, and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - HELD THAT - The documents on record disclose that the petitioner replied to the notice in Form GST ASMT 10, but failed to respond to the intimation and show cause notice that followed. As is evident from the impugned order, tax liability was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. It is also noticeable that the petitioner's reply to the notice in Form GST ASMT 10 was not taken into consideration. In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided an opportunity. The impugned order dated 08.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 08.12.2023 regarding alleged discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns, lack of communication of show cause notice and order to the petitioner.
Comprehensive details of the judgment: Challenge to Order-in-Original: The petitioner received notice in Form ASMT 10 dated 08.06.2023 alleging a discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns. The petitioner responded on 05.07.2023 stating that there was no difference and that excess tax had been paid under GSTR 3B. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 26.08.2023 and the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 were issued. The petitioner contended that they were unable to respond to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings as the notice and order were only uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated through any other means. Contentions of the Parties: The petitioner submitted documents to establish non-liability regarding the alleged discrepancy and expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. On the other hand, the respondent highlighted that the impugned order followed an intimation and show cause notice, with two personal hearing opportunities provided to the petitioner. Court's Analysis and Decision: The court noted that while the petitioner replied to the notice in Form GST ASMT 10, they failed to respond to the subsequent intimation and show cause notice. The impugned order confirmed tax liability due to the petitioner's lack of response to the show cause notice, disregarding the earlier reply. Considering the circumstances, the court deemed it just and appropriate to provide the petitioner with an opportunity. Final Order: The impugned order dated 08.12.2023 was set aside on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks and submits a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. Upon receiving the petitioner's reply and being satisfied with the remittance, the respondent was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred, and related motions were closed accordingly.
|
