2024 (6) TMI 1312 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - order assailed on the ground that the order is unreasoned and disregards the petitioner's replies - HELD THAT - The petitioner has placed on record three replies to the show cause notice. In these replies, the petitioner has explained the reasons for mismatch by stating that Government Departments reflect transactions in GSTR 7 while deducting TDS and making payments. On examining the impugned order, it merely records that the reply is not accepted. Since the impugned order is completely unreasoned, it cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an unreasoned order disregarding petitioner's replies under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, received a show cause notice dated 27.12.2023 and filed replies on 13.03.2024, 03.04.2024, and 29.04.2024. However, the impugned order was issued on 30.04.2024, leading to the challenge that it was unreasoned and ignored the petitioner's explanations.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the reply dated 03.04.2024 clarified the mismatch between the petitioner's returns and the recipient's GST 7 return, attributing it to work done for Government Departments during the VAT period with payments made later. Despite this explanation, the impugned order dismissed the reply as non-genuine, prompting the challenge.

The Additional Government Pleader for the respondent argued that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of payments during the VAT regime, indicating a lack of substantiation for the claims made in the replies submitted by the petitioner.

Upon review, it was found that the impugned order merely stated that the petitioner's reply was not accepted without providing any reasoned basis for the rejection. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 30.04.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receiving the court's directive.

As a result of the judgment, W.P.No.14964 of 2024 was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the associated miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.