GST Tax Order Quashed: Procedural Flaws Invalidate Demand Against Hardware Dealer, Directs Fresh Assessment

HC allowed writ petition challenging GST tax order, quashing the original demand against a hardware dealer. The court found procedural irregularities in the tax assessment, specifically the lack of proper hearing and incorrect claims about a supplier's non-existence. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with the petitioner directed to submit supporting documentation within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are regarding the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order related to GST tax period 2018-19, alleging illegality and arbitrariness, and seeking a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The petitioner, a hardware dealer with GST registration, received an order from the respondent stating that he had availed input tax credit from a non-existent taxpayer named Sun Steels, resulting in a demand for recovery of Rs. 71,604 along with a penalty. The petitioner claimed that he did not receive a notice of personal hearing after the show cause notice, thus alleging a violation of principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner contended that Sun Steels is a legitimate firm with GST registration, having filed returns and paid taxes for supplies made to the petitioner. During the hearing, it was revealed that the basis for the show cause notice, i.e., the non-existence of Sun Steels, was disproved as Sun Steels was indeed a registered entity paying taxes. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to present this information, leading to the impugned order being set aside.

3. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit necessary documents within a week, including invoice copies, e-way bill copies, and payment details, for the respondent's review within six weeks. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

---