2024 (5) TMI 1421 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Service of notices - notices and orders were uploaded on the View Additional Notices and Orders tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode - tax proposal pertaining to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertains to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A and the consequential inference that Input Tax Credit (ITC) was wrongly availed of. It is also clear that such tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause notice. Upon considering the averments in the affidavit and contentions of learned counsel, it is just and necessary that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to tax proposal based on discrepancy between GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A, lack of communication of notices to petitioner, opportunity for petitioner to contest tax demand.

Summary:

Challenge to Tax Proposal:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.10.2023, asserting lack of awareness of proceedings due to notices being uploaded on the GST portal without direct communication. The tax proposal in question related to a discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and auto-populated GSTR 2A, leading to an alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner, through counsel, expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand for reconsideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for further review.

Communication of Notices:
The respondent, represented by Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, Government Advocate, contended that notices were duly issued, including an intimation in June 2023, a show cause notice in July 2023, and a personal hearing notice on 03.10.2023. Despite this, the petitioner claimed lack of communication, leading to the challenge of the order. The Court acknowledged the need for proper communication and opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand.

Opportunity for Petitioner:
Upon perusal of the impugned order and considering submissions, the Court found it necessary to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand. The petitioner was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks, submit a reply to the show cause notice, and upon satisfaction of payment, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with the impugned order set aside for reconsideration based on the conditions outlined. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.