9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 372 - HC - GSTAttachment of Bank Account of petitioner - petitioner has challenged the impugned attachment notice on the ground that the petitioner was not informed in the show cause notice dated 20.01.2022 for levying GST - alleged output tax mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and tax mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-1 - HELD THAT - As seen from the written instructions, it is clear that only the summary of the impugned order was sent to the petitioner and no speaking order has been passed by the respondent. Since a speaking order has not been passed by the respondent with regard to the petitioner's contentions, necessarily the impugned order has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting them the right of personal hearing. The impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022 and the consequential recovery notice dated 19.10.2022 are hereby quashed and the matters are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
Issues:
Challenge to attachment notice under Section 79 of the GST Act based on non-payment of tax and penalty amount; Lack of information in the show cause notice regarding GST levy; Inclusion of penalty in the summary of the order without prior notice; Absence of a speaking order by the respondent. Analysis: The petitioner contested the attachment notice issued by the respondent under Section 79 of the GST Act, alleging non-payment of tax and penalty as per the order in Form GST-DRC-07. The petitioner argued that they were not informed about the GST levy of Rs.90,23,668.05 in the show cause notice, which was based on alleged tax mismatches in various GST returns. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the penalty amount was included in the summary of the order without prior intimation, leading to their awareness only upon receiving the attachment notice. The court noted that the respondent had not issued a speaking order in response to the petitioner's contentions. It was revealed that only a summary of the impugned order had been sent to the petitioner, and no detailed explanation or reasoning was provided. Consequently, the court ruled that in the absence of a speaking order addressing the petitioner's concerns, the impugned order must be quashed. The matter was directed to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and granting the petitioner the right of personal hearing. In the final judgment, the court quashed the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 and the recovery notice dated 19.10.2022. The respondent was instructed to reevaluate the matter on its merits and in compliance with the law, allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within two weeks. Following the petitioner's reply, the respondent was mandated to pass final orders after providing a fair hearing, including the right to a personal hearing. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.
|
