Madras HC Directed GST Dept. To Provide Another Opportunity of Hearing to Assessee Who Wasn’t Aware of Proceedings

Image

Case Details: Mrs. Preetha v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - [2024] 161 taxmann.com 131 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
• A.N.R. Jayaprathap & V. Anandhamoorthy for the Petitioner.
• V. Prashanth Kiran for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in trading of electrical and hardware goods. It received a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It filed writ petition against the demand order and contended that it was unable to respond to the intimation and show cause notice because such notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated by any other mode.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the impugned order was passed on account of petitioner not being heard before the impugned order was issued, and was unable to contest the tax demand. However, it should be noticed that the petitioner did not fulfil the obligation of monitoring the GST portal continually in spite of being a registered person.

Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the petitioner was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand. The Court also directed the department to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.