2024 (8) TMI 303 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - petitioner failed to respond to notices - discrepancy between the Return filed by the petitioner in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - time limitation - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the petitioner has deposited 10% of the disputed tax, the Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit another 15% of the disputed tax to the credit of the second respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to above deposit, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. This Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned assessment order based on discrepancy between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B, failure to respond to notices, time-barred Writ Petition, requirement for additional tax deposit.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed by the second respondent due to a discrepancy between the Return filed in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B. The petitioner failed to respond to various notices preceding the impugned order, including ASMT 10, DRC 01A, DRC 01, and a personal hearing notice. The petitioner claimed ignorance of these notices posted on the GST common portal, leading to the order being unnoticed. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the Writ Petition was time-barred and should be dismissed due to delays, citing relevant legal precedents.

The Court, after hearing both parties, directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax to the credit of the second respondent within 30 days. Upon this deposit, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the law. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was instructed to file a reply within 30 days of the order receipt, along with the required deposit. The second respondent was mandated to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before the decision.

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the outlined directions, without imposing any costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.