2024 (12) TMI 334 - HC - GST

Fraudulent availment of ineligible input tax credit - credit of input tax has been availed on the strength of tax invoices or debit notes or any other documents prescribed under Rule 36 issued by the supplier, who had been found to be not conducting any business from any place for which registration has been obtained - neither the SCN nor the impugned order of assessment have been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order passed by respondent for assessment year 2018-19. Service of show cause notices and order via common portal. Petitioner's request for opportunity to explain discrepancies and willingness to pay 25% of disputed tax. Bank attachment and lifting of the same.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the business of Scrab and a registered dealer under Goods and Services Act, 2017, challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent related to the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner was found to have fraudulently availed ineligible input tax credit during an inspection conducted under Section 67 of the GST Act. Despite notices issued, the petitioner did not respond or pay the tax amount, leading to the passing of the impugned order.

The challenge to the impugned order was based on the contention that the show cause notices and the assessment order were not served directly to the petitioner but uploaded on the common portal, which the petitioner claimed they were unable to access. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancies and cited a recent judgment in support of their request. They expressed readiness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and requested a final opportunity to present objections before the adjudicating authority.

In response to the petitioner's submissions, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. This deposit would convert the impugned order into a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections with supporting documents within another four weeks. Failure to comply with these timelines would result in the restoration of the impugned order. Additionally, the order specified the lifting of bank attachment upon payment of the required amount within two weeks.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and related motions were closed. The judgment provided a clear framework for the petitioner to address the tax dispute, emphasizing compliance with the specified timelines and conditions for further proceedings and the resolution of the matter.