9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 483 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - denial of reasonable opportunity - challenge to assessment order - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order it is evident that such order refers to contentions raised in the petitioner s replies. However it is noticeable from the petitioner s final reply dated 24.02.2024 that the petitioner requested for a personal hearing. Such personal hearing was not granted before issuing orders impugned herein. For such reason interference with the orders impugned herein is warranted. The impugned orders were preceded by both an intimation and a show cause notice. The petitioner s replies were also taken into consideration while issuing the impugned orders. In these circumstances revenue interest is required to be taken into consideration while remanding the matter. The orders impugned herein are set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period as agreed to within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Assessment orders for periods 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 challenged on the basis of denial of reasonable opportunity.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioner, a developer availing benefits under Notification No.03/2019, was subjected to inspection and subsequent show cause notices due to which impugned orders were issued. The primary contention was the denial of a personal hearing and non-reference to petitioner's replies in the orders. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that a personal hearing was requested but not granted, and the impugned order did not consider the petitioner's replies adequately. It was also contended that applying GST at 5% for non-compliance with Notification No.3/2019 exceeded jurisdiction, and the show cause notice lacked essential ingredients under Section 74 of GST enactments. 3. The Additional Government Pleader highlighted the petitioner's failure to provide evidence of projects qualifying as affordable housing and non-production of relevant documents despite agreements. The impugned order was defended for containing reasons for rejecting the request to impose GST at 1% instead of 5%. 4. The Court observed that while the impugned order referred to the petitioner's contentions, a personal hearing requested in the final reply was not granted, warranting interference with the orders. 5. Despite the need for remanding the matter considering revenue interest, the impugned orders were set aside with the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the disputed tax demand for each assessment period within two weeks. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue fresh orders within three months. 6. The Court disposed of the cases on the mentioned terms without costs, closing related applications.
|
