2024 (1) TMI 1110 - HC - GST

Validity of an assessment order imposing tax liability, interest and penalty - Seeking an opportunity to be heard - HELD THAT - The petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GST ASTM- 10 or to the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01. In addition, the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The explanation of the petitioner is that the consultant did not keep the petitioner informed. The consultant, in turn, states that the notices were not available on the tab relating to regular returns and were instead accessible only through the tab relating to additional notices. While these explanations are not wholly convincing, the fact remains that a registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order imposing tax liability, interest, and penalty for financial year 2017-18 due to discrepancy in turnover between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Summary:
The petitioner contested an assessment order imposing tax liability, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2017-18, citing lack of awareness about notices and non-participation in proceedings. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and supplying bags, relied on a GST practitioner who allegedly did not inform the petitioner about the notices. The consultant affirmed in an affidavit that the notices were not visible on the communication window. The petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the claim, emphasizing the discrepancy in turnover between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

The Government Advocate representing the respondent argued that all notices were available on the GST Department portal, and the petitioner's failure to respond did not warrant interference with the order. It was highlighted that a statutory appeal was an option for the petitioner, which was not utilized. The impugned order indicated that the petitioner did not respond to the intimation and show cause notice, nor attended the personal hearing. Despite explanations provided, the petitioner did not have the chance to address the tax department's claim regarding the turnover discrepancy between the returns.

The Court acknowledged the shortcomings in the explanations provided but recognized the petitioner's right to respond and participate in the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner was granted a two-week period to make submissions before the assessing officer, who was directed to complete the reassessment within two months of receiving the order. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred.