Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2025 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 204 - HC - GSTChallenge to impugned order passed by the first respondent on the premise that the petitioner had not submitted its reply - the petitioner had submitted its reply in fact - non-application of mind to the material on record - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The respondents would submit that they would redo the assessment after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned order dated 16.08.2024 is set aside. The petitioner in addition to the reply already filed may submit its objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any representation/reply is filed within the stipulated period the same shall be considered by the respondents and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Petition disposed off.
The High Court of Madras, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, addressed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.08.2024. The petitioner, a civil works contractor registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, contested the order on the grounds of non-application of mind, as it allegedly ignored the petitioner's reply submitted on 18.10.2023.The petitioner faced discrepancies in their tax returns for 2019-20, specifically a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, and suppression of Inward Supply. Despite filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice, the impugned order proceeded as if no objections were filed or personal hearing attended.The court noted the respondents' willingness to redo the assessment, providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner two weeks to submit further objections. Should the petitioner fail to file within this period, the original order would be reinstated. Additionally, the court ordered the lifting of a bank attachment imposed after the impugned order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, closing any related miscellaneous petitions.
|