GST demand order quashed for denying personal hearing opportunity under Section 75(5) despite portal option available

HC set aside GST demand order due to lack of personal hearing required under Section 75(5). Despite petitioner not availing portal hearing opportunity, court found prima facie case established. Order quashed with direction for petitioner to appear before respondent on specified date for fresh hearing. Respondent directed to consider petitioner's explanation and pass new order. Writ petition allowed, emphasizing opportunity of hearing as basic requirement before adverse orders.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are regarding the initiation of proceedings against a registered tax payer by the 1st respondent due to discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-7, resulting in the attachment of the petitioner's property and freezing of the bank account.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Communication of Notices through Portal
The petitioner, a registered tax payer, contended that the Show Cause Notice and other proceedings were communicated only through the portal, causing him to miss participating in the enquiry. The Court noted that while Section 169(D) allows notices through the portal, many traders may not be equipped to follow such notices and suggested alternative modes of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act.

Issue 2: Lack of Participation and Ignorance
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings due to ignorance in following the notices through the portal. The Additional Government Pleader for the 1st respondent stated that ample opportunities were provided, including a Show Cause Notice, personal hearing, and an appeal remedy, which the petitioner did not avail in time.

Issue 3: Judicial Precedent and Right to Revive Registration
Citing the case of Suguna Cutpiece v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the Court emphasized the importance of allowing assesses to integrate back into the GST regime to conduct legitimate business. The judgment highlighted the need to facilitate the return of petitioners to the GST fold, subject to certain conditions and safeguards, to ensure compliance with tax obligations.

Conclusion:
In light of the above issues, the Court set aside the impugned order to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent to provide an explanation, and the Court allowed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the importance of granting procedural fairness and opportunities for compliance in tax matters.

---