2024 (5) TMI 262 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - reply to the ASTM-10 notice was not taken into consideration - violation of principles of natural justice - confirmed tax demand relates to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and 3B returns - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the confirmed tax demand relates to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and 3B returns. It is also clear from the order that the petitioner's reply to the notice in Form ASMT-10 was not taken into account. In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits. The impugned order dated 25.09.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice. The petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Assailing an order due to non-consideration of reply to ASTM-10 notice, discrepancy in GSTR returns, failure to reply to show cause notice, setting aside the impugned order, remittance of disputed tax demand, providing opportunity to contest tax demand.

Summary:

1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 25.09.2023, contending that the reply to the ASTM-10 notice was not considered. The petitioner responded to the notice but did not reply to the subsequent show cause notice. The impugned order was issued based on this non-response. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand for remand.

2. The Additional Government Pleader highlighted that the impugned order was issued due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and provide supporting documents for the earlier reply. The confirmed tax demand stemmed from discrepancies in the petitioner's GSTR 1 and 3B returns, with the reply to the ASTM-10 notice not being factored in.

3. Upon reviewing the impugned order, it was evident that the petitioner's response to the ASTM-10 notice was not considered, necessitating a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand on its merits. The court set aside the order on the condition that 10% of the disputed tax demand be remitted within two weeks, along with the submission of a reply to the show cause notice within the same period.

4. The petitioner was granted a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to contest the tax demand. Upon the satisfaction of receiving the remittance and the petitioner's reply, the respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within two months. The case was disposed of under these terms, with no costs incurred.