2024 (10) TMI 963 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity - mismatch of input tax claim under Section 73(5) of the Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, it is seen that notice was issued by the respondent but however, the case was handled by his accountant who did not attend the personal hearing. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that a total tax liability of Rs. 5,89,004/- has been imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner has come up with a clear case that there are sufficient materials/documents to substantiate the defense of the petitioner to the effect that there was no mismatch of the input tax claim between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in SRI GANESA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES 2024 (10) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . This Court wanted to afford an opportunity to the petitioner therein by putting the petitioner on terms. In order to maintain consistency, a similar order can be passed in this writ petition also. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference Number ZD331123055367M dated 09.11.2023, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner will pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. If this condition is not complied with, the order passed by the respondent will stand automatically revived. This writ petition is allowed.

Summary

The High Court of Madras set aside the order of the 2nd respondent in a tax case due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration with a condition to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner's bank account, which was frozen, is directed to be unfrozen. The writ petition is allowed with no costs.