2024 (5) TMI 308 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - order challenged on the ground that the petitioner's reply was disregarded - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner's reply was disregarded by categorising such reply as an unauthorised reply. It is unclear as to why the reply was described as unauthorised. In any event, the impugned order is vitiated by non consideration of the petitioner's reply. Consequently, such order is unsustainable. The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order based on disregard of petitioner's reply and non-consideration of audit report under Section 65 of GST enactments.

Details of Judgment:

Issue 1: Disregard of Petitioner's Reply
The assessment order dated 29.12.2023 was challenged on the grounds that the petitioner's reply was disregarded, being categorized as an unauthorized reply. The petitioner had responded to the audit report on 28.11.2023, following a show cause notice issued pursuant to an audit under Section 65 of applicable GST enactments. The impugned order was issued on 29.12.2023. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reply was disregarded solely because the petitioner could not attend the scheduled personal hearing. The court noted that the impugned order was vitiated by the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply, which was unjustly labeled as unauthorized without clear justification. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the respondent to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months.

Issue 2: Non-consideration of Audit Report
The Additional Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner failed to produce a separate balance sheet and profit & loss account for the Tamil Nadu branch, leading to the confirmation of the tax demand. The court observed that the impugned order contained similar findings for each audit observation, with the conclusion of the Audit Officer being confirmed without due consideration of the petitioner's reply. The court emphasized the importance of giving proper weight to the petitioner's submissions and providing a fair opportunity for explanation before confirming tax demands. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for reconsideration aimed to rectify the lack of consideration for the petitioner's contentions and ensure a just outcome in the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Madras, through the judgment delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, addressed the issues of disregard of the petitioner's reply and non-consideration of the audit report under Section 65 of GST enactments. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for reconsideration with specific directives for providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the court upheld principles of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in tax assessment proceedings.