2024 (7) TMI 742 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - petitioner could not reply to any of the notices that preceded the impugned order - seeking one more opportunity to substantiate the case - HELD THAT - Having considered the medical certificate and discharge summary issued by the MIOT Hospitals Private Limited, Chennai, the Court is inclined to exercise the discretion partly in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned assessment order in GSTIN for the assessment period from April-2022 to Sep-2022.
Validity of notices preceding the impugned order.
Impact of the Managing Director's accident on the petitioner's ability to respond to notices.
Time-barred nature of the Writ Petition.
Applicability of appellate remedy limitation under Section 107 of GST Enactments.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned assessment order in GSTIN for a specific assessment period. The impugned order was preceded by various notices, including ASMT-10, DRC 01A, and DRC 01, along with three personal hearing notices. The petitioner's Managing Director was involved in a serious accident, leading to hospitalization and subsequent recovery, which hindered the petitioner's ability to respond to the notices. The petitioner presented a medical certificate and discharge summary to support this claim.

The respondent argued that the Writ Petition was time-barred due to delays, citing relevant legal precedents. The respondent contended that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under Section 107 of GST Enactments, referencing specific court decisions. Despite these arguments, the Court considered the medical evidence provided by the petitioner and decided to exercise discretion partly in favor of the petitioner.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the impugned order and instructed the respondent to re-examine the case and issue fresh orders in compliance with the law. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the preceding show cause notice. The petitioner was given 60 days to respond to the show cause notice, and the respondent was directed to make a decision within 30 days thereafter, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard in the process. The Writ Petition was allowed with the specified directions, and no costs were imposed.