9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 280 - HC - GSTChallenge to an assessment order - reasonable opportunity was not provided to the petitioner - impugned order was not preceded by a notice in Form ASMT 10 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - At the same time, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not provided opportunities to contest the tax demand, which arises out of alleged disparity between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns. A personal hearing was also offered on 22.05.2023. The fact remains, however, that the tax demand pertaining to alleged disparity between the monthly and annual returns was confirmed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has also offered to remit 5% of disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. When these facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively, it is just and appropriate that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the disputed tax demand. Such amount shall be remitted within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order for assessment period 2017-18 based on lack of reasonable opportunity and absence of notice in Form ASMT 10.
Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Lack of reasonable opportunity The petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing iron and steel products, challenged the assessment order for the assessment period 2017-18. The petitioner contended that a reasonable opportunity was not provided before the impugned order was issued. The petitioner highlighted that no personal hearing was granted before the issuance of the impugned order. The petitioner expressed readiness to remit 5% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. Issue 2: Absence of notice in Form ASMT 10 The petitioner argued that the intimation and show cause notice were issued without a prior notice in Form ASMT 10, which should have been provided before initiating proceedings based on scrutiny of returns. The petitioner emphasized the necessity of such notice to explain any disparities in the returns. Despite opportunities given to contest the tax demand, the petitioner asserted that the tax demand was confirmed without a hearing. Judgment The Court noted that while the petitioner was offered opportunities to contest the tax demand, the confirmation of the tax demand without a hearing was a procedural lapse. The Court directed the quashing of the impugned assessment order, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the disputed tax demand within three weeks. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the specified period. Upon receipt of the reply and satisfaction of the remittance, the respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. Conclusion The writ petition was disposed of with the above terms, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs imposed.
|
