9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1507 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner was unaware of SCN - petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT - Since the GST registration of the petitioner appears to have been cancelled, it stands to reason that the petitioner would not monitor the portal on an on going basis. By reply dated 21.12.2023, the petitioner requested for two weeks' time to respond to the notice. The show cause notice was issued on 30.09.2023 and it is likely that the limitation period was expiring in December 2023. In these circumstances, while the petitioner deserves an opportunity to contest the tax demand, it is also necessary to put the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand 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:
1. Cancellation of GST registration 2. Non-receipt of show cause notice 3. Discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns 4. Right to hearing for taxpayer 5. Remittance of disputed tax demand 6. Opportunity for petitioner to contest tax demand Analysis: 1. The petitioner, engaged in construction services, applied for cancellation of GST registration in 2019. The cancellation became effective from 01.11.2019. The petitioner claimed unawareness of a show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and subsequent reminders. A communication dated 21.12.2023 requested more time to respond, followed by the impugned order on 22.12.2023. 2. The petitioner, through its counsel, mentioned in a reply dated 21.12.2023 that awareness of proceedings was gained from an official of the respondent's office. The petitioner sought two weeks to respond to the notice, citing a discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns, claiming possession of relevant documents for clarification. 3. The Government Advocate for the respondent referred to the impugned order and highlighted the show cause notice followed by three reminders. Citing a judgment from the Madurai Bench, it was stated that three hearing opportunities are the maximum, not an absolute right. Access to the GST portal post-registration cancellation was noted, suggesting no interference unless terms were imposed. 4. The petitioner's counsel agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand, indicating willingness to comply with the directive. 5. Considering the cancellation of GST registration, the petitioner's limited monitoring of the portal was acknowledged. The petitioner requested time to respond in December 2023, close to the expiry of the limitation period. Balancing the need for the petitioner to contest the tax demand, the court decided to quash the impugned order subject to the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand. 6. The court ordered the petitioner to remit the specified amount within three weeks, submit a reply to the show cause notice within that period, and assured a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand, including a personal hearing. A fresh order was to be issued within two months from the receipt of the petitioner's reply, concluding the case without costs.
|
