2024 (8) TMI 304 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner failed to reply to the same and participate in the personal hearing pursuant to the personal hearing notices issued thereafter - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves fair chance to reply the same in view of the peculiar circumstance of this case as the demand was earlier dropped vide order in GST ASMT 12 dated 07.06.2024, pursuant to the notice in ASMT 10 dated 30.11.2021 and notice in DRC 01A also dated 30.11.2021. Although the petitioner has not responded to the notices that preceded the impugned order, the Court is of the view the interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is given one opportunity to participate in the impugned order proceedings subject to the petitioner filing a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 19.03.2024 together with the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. Subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register to the credit of the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. Petition disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 29.04.2024 for assessment year 2018-19; Failure to reply to notices preceding impugned order; Claim of settlement of dispute after responding to previous notices; Alternative remedy of appeal before Appellate Commissioner; Petitioner's right to reply and participate in proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent confirming the demand proposed in DRC 01 dated 19.03.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner failed to reply to the notices preceding the impugned order and did not participate in the personal hearing. The petitioner claimed that the dispute had been settled after responding to previous notices, but the respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the GST enactments.

After considering the submissions, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had not responded to the notices preceding the impugned order. However, due to the peculiar circumstances of the case where the demand was earlier dropped but later confirmed, the Court deemed it fair to give the petitioner an opportunity to reply and participate in the proceedings. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 19.03.2024 and deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Upon compliance, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh orders on merits.

The Court clarified that the impugned order, now quashed, should be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice preceding it. The petitioner was instructed to file a reply within 30 days and make the necessary deposit. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before the order is finalized. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the above directions, without imposing any costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.