2025 (1) TMI 885 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - lack of proper service of notice to the petitioner - petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that they may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection - HELD THAT - The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two 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 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. Petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment primarily revolves around the following core issues:

• Whether the impugned order and notice issued by the respondent were valid given the alleged lack of proper service to the petitioner.
• Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to present their case despite the procedural lapses alleged by them.
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to a remand of the case for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, subject to certain conditions.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Order and Notice

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned order and notice on the grounds of improper service. The legal framework requires that notices and orders should be properly served to the concerned parties to ensure due process.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings due to improper service, as the documents were uploaded on the GST Portal without direct communication.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that they did not receive the show cause notices or the impugned order by tender or RPAD, which led to their non-participation in the adjudication process.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court considered the petitioner's claim of lack of awareness due to improper service and found merit in the argument that due process was not adequately followed.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent did not have serious objections to the petitioner's request for a remand, acknowledging the procedural irregularities.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the impugned order and notice were to be set aside due to improper service, granting the petitioner an opportunity to present their case.

Issue 2: Opportunity to Present the Case

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner referenced a recent judgment where a similar matter was remanded for reconsideration subject to payment of a portion of the disputed taxes.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the precedent and recognized the petitioner's willingness to comply with conditions similar to those in the referenced case.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax to secure an opportunity to present their objections.
• Application of Law to Facts: By agreeing to deposit a portion of the disputed tax, the petitioner demonstrated good faith in seeking a fair hearing.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent did not oppose the petitioner's proposal, facilitating the court's decision to allow for a remand.
• Conclusions: The court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case, allowing the petitioner to present their objections subject to the deposit condition.

Issue 3: Remand for Reconsideration

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referred to its own precedent in a similar case where a remand was granted under specific conditions.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found it appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, allowing the petitioner to submit objections and supporting documents.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the petitioner's commitment to comply with the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the precedent to the current case, finding that a remand would ensure a fair opportunity for the petitioner to address the alleged discrepancies.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The absence of serious objections from the respondent supported the court's decision to remand the case.
• Conclusions: The court ordered the remand of the case with specific directions for the petitioner to deposit the tax and submit objections within stipulated timeframes.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The court stated, "The impugned order and consequential notice passed by the respondent dated 09.10.2023 and 25.01.2024 respectively are hereby set aside."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper service of notices and the opportunity for parties to present their case, ensuring adherence to due process.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned order due to improper service, granted the petitioner an opportunity to present their objections upon depositing 25% of the disputed tax, and remanded the case for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.