9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 203 - HC - GSTChallenge to impugned order passed by the first respondent - service of SCN - neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD instead it had been uploaded in the GST Portal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount has been recovered or paid out of the disputed taxes including by way of pre-deposit in appeal the same would be reduced/adjusted from/towards the 25% of disputed taxes directed to be paid. The assessing authority shall then intimate the balance amount out of 25 % of disputed taxes to be paid if any within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit such remaining sum within a period of three weeks from such intimation. The impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this case was whether the impugned order of assessment for the assessment year 2019-20, issued by the first respondent, was validly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the order was not properly served, as it was only uploaded on the GST Portal, and they were therefore unaware of the proceedings. Additionally, the petitioner sought an opportunity to explain discrepancies in their tax filings and requested the lifting of a bank attachment. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Validity of Service of the Impugned Order: Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case revolves around the procedural requirements for serving tax assessment orders under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on procedural fairness, arguing that the order was not properly communicated as per the statutory requirements, which typically involve direct service or registered post rather than mere portal uploads. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered whether the method of service via the GST Portal met the legal standards for proper notification. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the proceedings due to the lack of direct service, which impeded their ability to respond to the notice. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner did not receive the show cause notices or the impugned order by traditional means, leading to their non-participation in the adjudication process. The Court acknowledged this procedural lapse. Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the reliance solely on portal uploads for service did not fulfill the statutory requirements, thereby justifying the petitioner's claim for lack of proper service. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not strongly contest the petitioner's claim regarding service defects, focusing instead on procedural compliance post-remand. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the service of the impugned order was inadequate, warranting the setting aside of the order and granting the petitioner another opportunity to present their case. 2. Opportunity to Address Discrepancies and Lifting of Bank Attachment: Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought to address discrepancies noted in their tax filings, citing a precedent where a similar case was remanded for further consideration upon partial payment of disputed taxes. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized the petitioner's willingness to comply with procedural requirements by remitting a portion of the disputed taxes and their request for a fair hearing to address discrepancies. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had already remitted more than 30% of the disputed taxes, indicating their intent to resolve the matter. The Court noted this compliance in its decision. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied principles of fairness and procedural justice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections and supporting documents in response to the discrepancies noted in their tax filings. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not object to the lifting of the bank attachment, provided the petitioner complied with the payment condition. Conclusions: The Court allowed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed taxes and lifted the bank attachment, granting the petitioner an opportunity to address the discrepancies in a fair hearing. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 and established a framework for resolving the matter, emphasizing procedural fairness and compliance with statutory requirements: Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the necessity of proper service of tax assessment orders and the importance of providing taxpayers with a fair opportunity to address discrepancies. Final Determinations on Each Issue:
The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax matters and balancing enforcement with taxpayer rights to due process.
|
