9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 362 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - it is submitted that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to respond to the audit observations and to the show cause notice - HELD THAT - On examining documents on record, it is evident that the petitioner did not participate in proceedings culminating in the impugned order. Such non-participation was on account of the petitioner's negligence in responding to notices received. Since the petitioner did not contest the tax demand on merits, it is just and appropriate to provide the petitioner an opportunity to do so by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 2812.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues: Challenge on grounds of breach of natural justice in an order dated 28.12.2023.
In this case, the petitioner, a dealer of marbles, granites, and related materials, challenged an order issued on 28.12.2023, alleging a breach of natural justice. The petitioner received an audit report on 23.09.2023, followed by a show cause notice on 27.09.2023, which the petitioner did not respond to, claiming that their appointed auditor failed to inform them about the proceedings. The impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner, through their counsel, requested an opportunity to be heard and agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent argued that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to respond to the audit observations and show cause notice. The court found that the petitioner's non-participation in the proceedings leading to the impugned order was due to negligence in responding to notices. Since the petitioner did not contest the tax demand on its merits, the court deemed it appropriate to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to do so by imposing certain conditions. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two months and submit a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and satisfaction of the remittance condition, the respondent was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. The court disposed of the case with the mentioned terms, with no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
|
