2024 (5) TMI 307 - HC - GST

Wrong availment of transitional Input Tax Credit - request for an adjournment was not responded to and that a personal hearing was not provided in breach of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The reply dated 20.12.2023 of the petitioner refers to the death of the mother of one of the partners on 11.12.2023. On account of the same, the petitioner requested for further time to reply to the show cause notice. The respondent did not respond to the request for adjournment and instead issued the impugned order. While a personal hearing was offered under the reminder dated 16.12.2023, the order is unsustainable because the request of the petitioner for an adjournment was not considered and no personal hearing was offered pursuant to such reply. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. Petition disposed off.

Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order imposing liability on petitioner for wrong availment of transitional Input Tax Credit.

Summary:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, had carried forward Input Tax Credit from the erstwhile value added tax regime to the GST regime. An intimation was issued to the petitioner in August 2022, followed by a show cause notice in September 2023. The petitioner requested an extension of time due to the death of a partner's mother, but the impugned order was issued on 29.12.2023 without considering the request for adjournment or providing a personal hearing as required by Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the request for adjournment was not responded to, and a personal hearing was not provided, as mandated by law. On the other hand, the Government Advocate pointed out that the petitioner had sufficient time to respond, as the intimation was issued in August 2022.

The Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because the respondent did not consider the petitioner's request for adjournment and failed to provide a personal hearing despite offering one under a reminder dated 16.12.2023. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter for re-consideration. The petitioner was granted fifteen days to submit a reply to the show cause notice, and the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, before issuing a fresh order within two months.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with no costs, and the related motions were closed as per the above terms.

← Previous Next →