2024 (7) TMI 749 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - explanation that was given by the petitioner during the course of personal hearing has not been discussed in the operative portion of the impugned order - HELD THAT - The fact remains that the petitioner has discharged substantial portion of the demand of Rs. 1,15,98,246/- by depositing Rs. 68,09,076/- for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The petitioner has not given proper explanation by way of reply. Only during the course of personal hearing, some attempt was made by the petitioner. However, there are no proper discussion in the impugned order. The case is remitted back to the respondent by quashing the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner earlier. The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitio allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner challenging impugned order for assessment years 2017-18 to 2021-22, tax liability admission for 2018-19 and 2019-20, demands confirmed for 2017-18 and 2021-22, lack of proper discussion in the impugned order, case remitted back to respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the Court against the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2021-22. It was noted that the petitioner admitted to the tax liability for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The tax amount paid by the petitioner was appropriated towards the tax liability for these years. However, demands were confirmed for the remaining assessment years, namely 2017-18 and 2021-22, with specific amounts due and payable by the petitioner.

For the assessment year 2017-18, the demand was confirmed based on the petitioner's taxable turnover under the TNVAT Act, 2006. On the other hand, for the assessment year 2021-22, the demand was calculated using various financial indicators such as the highest turnover among profit and loss account, GSTR 3B value, income tax return in Form 26 AS, GSTR 7, and GSTR 9. The petitioner's counsel argued that the explanation provided during the personal hearing was not adequately reflected in the impugned order.

Upon considering the submissions, the Court observed that the petitioner had paid a significant portion of the total demand. However, it was noted that the petitioner's explanation was not adequately discussed in the impugned order, except for some details mentioned in specific paragraphs. Consequently, the Court remitted the case back to the respondent, quashing the impugned order. The petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax for a fresh order to be passed on merits and in accordance with the law. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the earlier show cause notice, and the petitioner was given 30 days to file a consolidated reply.

Upon compliance with the above requirements, the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order within three months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before final orders were issued. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, concluding the legal proceedings.