2024 (8) TMI 1262 - HC - GST

Demand of differencial amount in respect of impugned assessment periods - mismatch of tax liability for the financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 - attachment of bank account - HELD THAT - It is evident that the respondent issued Form DRC-01A dated 27.01.2023 and the petitioner also filed a reply to the said notice. Though, the Form DRC-01 dated 12.06.2023 was issued, no reply was filed by the petitioner, as the said notice was uploaded in common portal and the petitioner was unaware of such notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason adduced by the petitioner for non-filing of reply and non-participating in the proceedings is that he has given instruction to his Accountant to file a reply, however, the Accountant has failed to appear before the Authority concerned to present the case. Under these circumstances, the present impugned orders dated 13.09.2023 came to be passed by the respondent. This Court is of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the Assessee to appear before the Authority concerned to present the case. Once, the show cause notice was uploaded in the common portal, the petitioner ought to have filed a reply within a stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the Department for not furnishing a physical copy - This Court is of the view, than an opportunity to file suitable reply and a personal hearing before the Authority concerned should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte violating the principles of natural justice. This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging mismatch of tax liability for multiple financial years, ex-parte orders passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, attachment of bank account, failure to file reply to notice, responsibility of assessee to present case, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned orders dated 13.09.2023 passed by the respondent, alleging a mismatch of tax liability for the financial years 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The respondent demanded payment of a differential amount for these assessment periods. The petitioner contended that the respondent issued notices without considering their replies, leading to ex-parte orders. The petitioner's bank account was attached, and a significant sum was transferred without proper communication or physical service of orders. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case and participate in the proceedings, emphasizing the lack of notice and personal hearing.

The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that the petitioner failed to respond to certain notices, resulting in a substantial tax liability. Acknowledging the withdrawal from the petitioner's bank account, the respondent suggested remanding the matter for appropriate orders after verifying the payment. The Court heard both parties and reviewed the submissions and materials on record.

Upon consideration, the Court noted that while the petitioner replied to one notice, they failed to respond to another due to lack of awareness, as the notice was only uploaded online. The petitioner attributed this lapse to their Accountant's failure to appear before the Authority. The Court emphasized the assessee's responsibility to participate in proceedings upon notice issuance. However, recognizing the Accountant's oversight and the violation of natural justice principles, the Court deemed it necessary to grant the petitioner an opportunity for a suitable reply and a personal hearing before the Authority.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the respondent for fresh consideration for the specified assessment years. No further conditions were imposed due to the amount already withdrawn from the petitioner's bank account. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply within two weeks, after which the respondent would schedule a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, ensuring compliance with the law and verification of payments. The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with these directions, without imposing any costs.