9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 173 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - order-in-original assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the GSTR 9/9C returns and Form 26AS - HELD THAT - On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal relates to the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the GSTR 9/9C returns, on the one hand, and Form 26AS, on the other. It is also clear that the assessment period is 2017-18 when the GST enactments came into force on 01.07.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason for mismatch is that the pre-GST period from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 is reflected in Form 26AS, whereas the same is not reflected in the GST returns of the petitioner. This aspect should be examined by the assessing officer. The impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the said period, the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to tax demand due to lack of reasonable opportunity for contesting, Mismatch between GSTR returns and Form 26AS, Compliance with principles of natural justice. Analysis: The judgment deals with the challenge to a tax demand based on the ground that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to contest the same. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings leading to the assessment order as the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated through any other means. The tax proposal was related to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and Form 26AS for the assessment period of 2017-18, with the contention that the mismatch arose due to the different coverage periods of the two documents. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax demand for reconsideration. The Additional Government Pleader contended that principles of natural justice were followed with the issuance of relevant notices. The impugned order highlighted the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR returns and Form 26AS for the assessment period, emphasizing the need for the assessing officer to examine the pre-GST period's reflection in Form 26AS. Due to the petitioner's alleged unawareness of the proceedings, the judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring justice by allowing the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the process. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks and submits a reply to the show cause notice. The first respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months upon receiving the petitioner's reply. The judgment also ordered the lifting of the bank attachment due to the setting aside of the assessment order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, along with the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions.
|
