9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 883 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order - discrepancy between the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - petitioner's replies were not taken into consideration - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner's replies were not taken into consideration while recording the conclusions. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. Therefore, impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order after taking into consideration the petitioner's replies and any documents annexed thereto. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to an order due to petitioner's replies not considered. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.12.2023 on the grounds that their replies were not taken into consideration. The petitioner received a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 on 18.08.2023, followed by a show cause notice on 19.09.2023. The petitioner requested an extension to file necessary documents and replied on 19.12.2023 and 29.12.2023, explaining discrepancies in returns. The petitioner's counsel argued that these replies were disregarded in the impugned order. The respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner only sought an extension and failed to rectify discrepancies while filing the annual return. The impugned order stated that the taxpayer did not file a reply in Form ASMT-11, leading to the issuance of a notice in DRC-01. It also detailed the interest quantification as per section 50 of the TNGST Act, 2017, providing a calculation for interest due based on the tax liability and number of days delayed. The court noted that the petitioner's replies were not considered in reaching these conclusions, making the order unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and remanded the matter for re-consideration. The respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months, taking into account the petitioner's replies and any annexed documents. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related motions were closed as a result.
|
