2024 (3) TMI 1030 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity - petitioner states that proceedings were initiated and that the petitioner could not participate in such proceedings on account of being unaware of the same until such proceedings culminated in the impugned order - HELD THAT - The position taken by the petitioner is that the entire tax liability has arisen on account of an inadvertent error committed while filing the GSTR 1 return for October 2019. It is further stated that such error was corrected by filing the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns. The entire amount due and payable under the impugned order was appropriated from the petitioner's bank account. Therefore, at this juncture, revenue interest is fully secured. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The primary challenge is the lack of a reasonable opportunity provided to the petitioner in an order dated 28.07.2023.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Lack of Reasonable Opportunity
The petitioner, a registered person under applicable GST enactments engaged in the transport of goods, inadvertently failed to indicate GST leviable on services on a reverse charge basis in the GSTR 1 return for October 2019. Despite initiating proceedings related to the GSTR 1 return, the petitioner was unaware and could not participate until the impugned order was issued. The petitioner explained the error in a communication dated 22.01.2024 and requested another opportunity. The respondent had already appropriated the amount payable from the petitioner's bank account. The Court acknowledged the inadvertent error and the subsequent correction in the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. The amounts appropriated shall abide by the outcome of the remanded proceedings.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.