Madras High Court GST assessment Order is set aside and the matter is remanded back  to the respondent for reconsideration as the order Uploaded Only on Portal 

Tvl. Mayur Granites Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The case of Tvl. Mayur Granites Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) brought before the Madras High Court revolves around a challenge to an assessment order concerning GST. The crux of the matter lies in the contention that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits. Central to this challenge is the mode of communication regarding the assessment order, which was solely uploaded on the GST portal without any other form of communication to the petitioner.

The petitioner argues that the lack of direct communication regarding the assessment order deprived them of the opportunity to contest the tax demand effectively. They contend that had they been informed through conventional means, they would have been able to provide satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies between their GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A returns. Furthermore, the petitioner expresses willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

The Government Advocate, representing the first respondent, acknowledges the issuance of a show cause notice preceding the impugned order. However, the crux of the matter remains the petitioner’s lack of participation due to the absence of direct communication.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, the court observes that the tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitioner’s non-filing of objections or participation in the personal hearing. However, considering the petitioner’s assertion of being able to explain the discrepancies given an opportunity, the court deems it just and appropriate to remand the matter to the first respondent.

The Madras High Court sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the first respondent with certain conditions. The petitioner is directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within fifteen days, along with the opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notices within the same period. The first respondent is instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue fresh orders within two months of receiving the petitioner’s reply.

This disposition leads to the closure of the case, with no costs incurred by either party.

Full Text Of The Judgment/Order Of Madras High Court

In this writ petition, an assessment order is challenged on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

2. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the order impugned herein because such order was uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode.

3. By pointing out that the tax demand pertains to discrepancy between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be in a position to explain the discrepancy satisfactorily if provided an opportunity. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a condition for remand, the petitioner is willing to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand.

4. MRS. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the first respondent. With reference to the impugned order, she points out that such order was preceded by a show cause notice and that, therefore, the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to contest the tax demand.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file objections or participate in the personal hearing. The petitioner has asserted that he would be in a position to explain the discrepancy between the GSTR 3B and 2A returns if provided an opportunity. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms.

6. For reasons set out above, the order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notices within the aforesaid period. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the first respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply. Since the impugned assessment order is being set aside, the bank attachments pursuant thereto is raised.

7. W.P.No.10483 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.11485 and 11486 of 2024 are closed.