9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1186 - HC - GSTValidity of order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - lack of communication of the notice to the petitioner - Petitioner was unaware of the initiation of any such proceedings and accordingly could not respond to the same - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order categorically records that the tax payer has not replied or appeared in person and a demand as ex-parte is created. It merely states that Further another opportunity to submit reply and for the sake of natural justice opportunity for Personal Hearing as per provision of Section 75 (4) DGST Act was also provided to the taxpayer by issuing REMINDER through the GST portal. Now since no reply/explanation has been received from the taxpayer despite sufficient and repeated opportunities which indicate that the taxpayer has nothing to say in the matter. The undersigned is left with no other option to create demand ex-parte in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 73 (9) of the CGST / DGST Act 2017 as per discrepancies already conveyed through SCN/DRC-01. The Proper Officer has opined that despite providing another opportunity neither an online reply has been filed nor has the petitioner appeared in person or through an authorized representative. Since the only reason for passing the impugned order is that Petitioner had not filed any reply/explanation Petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Impugned order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on a Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2023; Allegation of lack of communication of the notice to the petitioner; Interpretation of placement of notices on the GST portal; Failure of the petitioner to respond leading to an ex-parte demand.
Judgment Details: 1. The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.12.2023 raising a demand of Rs. 5,83,18,566.00 u/s 73 of the Act. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings due to the Show Cause Notice being uploaded under 'Additional Notices' without direct communication. The petitioner cited a similar case from the High Court of Madras regarding notice placement on the portal. 2. The petitioner argued that had the notice been correctly placed, they would have responded. The issue of notice placement was emphasized through judgments from the Madras High Court, highlighting the challenges faced due to the web portal's design complexity. 3. Referring to another Madras High Court judgment, it was noted that the portal had been re-designed to address the issue of notice placement. The petitioner contended that the lack of notice visibility led to their failure to respond to the Show Cause Notice. 4. The impugned order recorded the petitioner's non-response, leading to an ex-parte demand creation. The Court found that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice for a fair adjudication, setting aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2023. 5. The Court directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to file a response within two weeks and re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, providing a fresh order within the prescribed period. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all rights and contentions reserved. 6. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial time extension was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
