2024 (11) TMI 454 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment orders in respect of distinct assessment periods - breach of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The assessment orders were issued on 31.07.2023, but the petitioner has approached this Court in late February 2024 after the bank accounts of the petitioner were attached. The documents on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was negligent in not contesting the assessment proceedings until orders of attachment were issued. However, it is equally clear that the orders impugned herein were issued without hearing the petitioner. In these circumstances, solely with the view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demands, interference with the impugned orders is warranted subject to putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned assessment orders are quashed and the matters are remanded for re-consideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 12.5% of the disputed tax demand in each assessment order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Assails assessment orders on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders for distinct periods citing a breach of natural justice principles. The petitioner claimed unfamiliarity with GST compliances, stating they were managed by a consultant. It was argued that the petitioner was unaware of the assessment proceedings until bank accounts were frozen due to uploaded notices on the GST portal. The petitioner sought to present evidence to support genuine Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment and requested an opportunity to do so before the assessing officer.

Analysis:
The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner and another party were related, pointing out discrepancies in the petitioner's claims. It was highlighted that the petitioner had accessed the GST portal and replied to a notice previously, indicating awareness of proceedings. The advocate suggested imposing conditions to protect revenue interests if the petitioner was granted another opportunity.

Analysis:
The assessment order revealed that notices were issued regarding return discrepancies, followed by intimation and show cause notice. Multiple personal hearing notices were sent, with acknowledgment of receipt by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's delay in challenging the assessment, the orders were issued without hearing the petitioner. The court intervened to allow the petitioner to contest the tax demands, remanding the matters with a condition to remit 12.5% of disputed tax demand for each assessment order.

Analysis:
As a result, the impugned assessment orders were quashed, and the matters were remanded for reconsideration with the condition of remittance within a specified timeframe. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, and the assessing officer was directed to issue fresh assessment orders within a set period after receiving the petitioner's reply. The court also addressed the bank attachments, lifting them pending compliance with the specified conditions.

Analysis:
The judgment disposed of the cases on the outlined terms without costs, closing related motions.