2024 (4) TMI 613 - HC - GST

Taxpayer Wins Challenge Against GST Assessment Order Due to Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Reasoned Decision

Ford India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. K. Sakthivel Versus Deputy Commissioner (ST-III), Chennai

Petitioner challenged an assessment order under GST Act for non-GST turnover without personal hearing. HC found the order unsustainable due to lack of ... Violation of principles of natural justice - personal hearing was not provided after the petitioner's reply to the SCN - impugned order does not contain any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply - HELD THAT:- Although the document indicates that the petitioner had checked the box for no personal hearing, the statutory mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of applicable GST enactments is that a personal hearing should be provided either if requested for or if an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued. In this case, it should also be noticed that the petitioner's requested for personal hearing under e-mail dated 05.12.2022, which the respondent says was not received. Also, the order does not contain any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply. Since these findings are not supported by reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed 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 a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 73 of TNGST Act for non-GST turnover without providing personal hearing post-reply to show cause notice.Summary:The petitioner challenged an order dated 28.12.2023 on the grounds of lack of personal hearing post-reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner's reply on 01.11.2022 addressed alleged non-GST turnover, followed by a show cause notice on 17.11.2022 and a reply on 17.02.2023. The impugned assessment order was issued on 28.12.2023.The petitioner contended that the impugned order did not consider their reply stating no non-GST turnover, explaining non-operating revenue sources. The petitioner's request for personal hearing was not accommodated before the order issuance.The respondent, through the Government Advocate, mentioned that the petitioner's e-mail dated 05.12.2022 was not received, and the petitioner did not opt for a personal hearing. However, the statutory mandate u/s 75(4) of GST enactments requires a personal hearing if requested or if an adverse order is proposed.The Court noted that although the petitioner initially opted for no personal hearing, they later requested it via e-mail. The impugned order lacked reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's reply, making it unsustainable. Consequently, the order dated 28.12.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months.In conclusion, W.P.No.9482 of 2024 was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.