2024 (1) TMI 1146 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - imposition of tax, interest and penalty - petitioner submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to contest the claim especially considering that the claim is confined to a difference in turnover as between Form GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B - HELD THAT - The petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GST-DRC- 01A 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. 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-2B and Form GSTR-3B. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference. The matter is remanded for re-consideration. It is made clear that the petitioner will not have an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and the opportunity would be limited to participation in the proceedings before the assessing officer and making any submissions in relation thereto - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges an assessment order imposing tax liability, interest, and penalty. The main contention is the lack of awareness regarding notices and the opportunity to contest the claim based on turnover differences between Form GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner, engaged in trading, claims lack of awareness of notices due to reliance on a GST practitioner. An affidavit from the consultant supports the claim that notices were not communicated effectively. The petitioner seeks an opportunity to contest the claim based on turnover differences.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner's counsel argues for the petitioner to have a chance to contest the claim, emphasizing the reliance on the consultant and lack of awareness of the notices. The Additional Government Pleader contends that all notices were available on the GST Department portal, and the petitioner had the option of a statutory appeal which was not utilized.

Notice and Response Analysis:
Notices in Form GST-DRC-01A and Form GST-DRC-01 were issued to the petitioner, followed by a personal hearing which the petitioner did not respond to. The petitioner's explanation revolves around the consultant's failure to inform about the notices, highlighting a discrepancy in access to the notices through different tabs.

Judgment and Remand:
The court acknowledges the petitioner's lack of opportunity to respond to the tax department's claim due to the consultant's alleged oversight. The impugned order is quashed, and the matter is remanded for re-consideration, granting the petitioner a chance to participate in the proceedings before the assessing officer within a specified timeline.

Conclusion:
The court quashes the impugned order, directing re-assessment within a specific timeframe, allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and make submissions. The case is disposed of without costs, with a clear directive for re-assessment and submission deadlines to be adhered to.