9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1417 - HC - GSTChallenge to tax demand order under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the orders could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - At present it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab view notices and orders . No useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Petition allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the petitioner was duly notified of the tax demand order under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, given that the notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the GST Portal instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' Tab. This issue encompasses questions about the adequacy of communication of the order and the petitioner's ability to respond within the limitation period. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue revolves around the procedural requirements under Section 73 of the GST Act, which deals with the determination of tax not paid or short-paid. The procedural aspect of the notice's communication is crucial, as it affects the taxpayer's ability to respond or contest the order. The judgment references a precedent set in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which dealt with a similar issue of notice misplacement on the GST Portal. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized that the misplacement of notices on the GST Portal could lead to a lack of awareness by the taxpayer, thereby affecting their ability to respond within the statutory period. The Court found that this procedural lapse warranted the setting aside of the order to ensure fair opportunity and compliance with due process. Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence primarily consisted of the manner in which the notices were uploaded on the GST Portal. The petitioner demonstrated that the notices were not available under the 'Due Notices and Orders' Tab, which is the standard method for communicating such orders. This was not contested by the Department, which acknowledged the misplacement of the notices. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of fair notice and procedural fairness, as established in the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case, to the facts at hand. It determined that the petitioner was entitled to a benefit of doubt due to the procedural irregularity in the communication of the notice. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department did not dispute the procedural error regarding the notice's placement. The Court noted that the issue might stem from the GST Network's design, a separate entity responsible for the portal's operation. Given this acknowledgment, the Court focused on ensuring the petitioner's right to due process rather than delving into the technicalities of the portal's operation. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the procedural lapse in notifying the petitioner justified setting aside the impugned order. It directed the issuance of a fresh notice in accordance with the prescribed legal manner, allowing the petitioner adequate time to respond. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the procedural error in the communication of the notice on the GST Portal warranted the quashing of the impugned order. It established the principle that taxpayers must receive notices in a manner that allows them to exercise their right to respond within the statutory period. The Court emphasized the need for clear and accessible communication of tax demands to ensure compliance with due process. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The final determination was to allow the writ petition, quash the order dated 30.12.2023, and direct the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days clear notice in the prescribed manner. This ensures that the petitioner has a fair opportunity to respond to the tax demand.
|
