2024 (6) TMI 1238 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - notices and orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated to petitioner - breach of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The documents on record reveal that proceedings were initiated pursuant to a notice in Form ASMT-10 in November 2020. Thereafter, the intimation was issued in May 2023 and the assessment order was issued on 25.07.2023. As a registered person under applicable GST statutes, the explanation of the petitioner that he was unaware of the notices and the assessment order is not entirely convincing. However, it is noticeable that the petitioner was not granted sufficient time for the personal hearing by notices dated 03.07.2023 and 17.07.2023 and, admittedly, the petitioner was not heard. The impugned orders are quashed and these matters are remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the remittance of 10% of the disputed tax demand under each assessment order - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment orders challenged on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner claimed unawareness of proceedings until the bank notified about an attachment order, arguing that notices were only uploaded on the GST portal without direct communication. The petitioner highlighted a reminder for a personal hearing issued shortly before the reply deadline, emphasizing the lack of a hearing before the assessment order.

The Additional Government Pleader for the respondent contended that the petitioner had sufficient opportunities, citing intimation, show cause notice, and multiple personal hearing offers. The timeline of events showed initiation in November 2020, with subsequent notices leading to the assessment order in July 2023. While acknowledging the petitioner's registration under GST statutes, the court found the lack of adequate time for a personal hearing and confirmed that the petitioner was not heard.

Upon the petitioner's agreement to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand for each assessment year, the court deemed it just and necessary to allow the petitioner to contest the tax demand under certain conditions. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matters were remanded for reconsideration by the assessing officer. The petitioner was granted a specified period to reply to the show cause notice and remit the agreed amount, after which the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh assessment orders within a stipulated timeframe. The court also ordered the release of bank attachments due to the quashing of assessment orders.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the specified terms, with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.