2024 (3) TMI 682 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities to contest the tax demand and penalty or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The reply dated 280.08.2023 of the petitioner is on record. By such reply, the petitioner asserted that a sum of Rs. 1,79,806/- each was paid towards CGST and SGST along with interest of Rs. 77,903/- each towards CGST and SGST. When the impugned assessment order is examined against this backdrop, it is unclear as to how the liability of Rs. 1,43,048/- each towards SGST and CGST was arrived at. The assessment order also refers to the payment of Rs. 2,57,709/- by the petitioner, whereas documents on record indicate that the sum paid was Rs. 1,79,806/- each towards CGST and SGST. In addition, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, penalty was imposed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to issue show cause in respect thereof. For all these reasons, the impugned assessment order warrants interference. Hence, the assessment order dated 29.09.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondents are directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The assessment order dated 29.09.2023 for the assessment period 2017-18 is challenged by a partnership firm dealing in oil and oil seeds regarding the payment of CGST and SGST, as well as the imposition of penalty without proper opportunity for the petitioner to respond.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Assessment Order Challenge
The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed returns in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B periodically for the assessment year. A notice in Form ASMT 10 was issued on 10.06.2023, followed by a show cause notice on 16.08.2023 alleging a liability to pay a sum towards CGST and SGST. The petitioner responded stating payments made towards CGST, SGST, and interest. However, the subsequent assessment order demanded different amounts than what was paid by the petitioner, and penalty was imposed without prior notice.

Issue 2: Lack of Opportunity for Response
The petitioner's counsel highlighted discrepancies between the amounts mentioned in the show cause notice and the assessment order, as well as the imposition of penalty without any reference in the initial notice. The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner had opportunities to contest the tax demand through intimation, show cause notice, and personal hearings which were not availed by the petitioner.

Judgment:
Upon examination, it was found that the petitioner was not called upon to show cause regarding the proposed penalty in the initial notice. The assessment order did not align with the payments made by the petitioner, and penalty was imposed without proper opportunity for the petitioner to respond. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration with a directive to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, before issuing a fresh assessment order within two months. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred.