2024 (7) TMI 373 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner has not participated in the proceedings, as the petitioner was unaware of the notices that preceded the impugned notice - HELD THAT - This Court is inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax through Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months thereafter. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order for assessment year 2017-18 confirming a demand of Rs. 1,19,660. Petitioner's lack of participation in proceedings. Request for opportunity to represent the case. Respondent's argument of dismissal due to latches. Granting partial relief by quashing the impugned order subject to depositing 25% of disputed tax. Remitting the case back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits. Requirement for the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 confirming a demand of Rs. 1,19,660 for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner claimed unawareness of preceding notices and requested an opportunity to represent the case on merits. On the other hand, the respondent argued for dismissal due to latches, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. The court considered both sides' submissions and decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order. However, this relief was subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits within three months.

The court emphasized that the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and cooperate with the respondent. Failure to cooperate could result in the respondent taking legal action. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed. The judgment aimed to balance the petitioner's right to be heard with the need for procedural compliance and timely action in tax matters.