2024 (4) TMI 774 - HC - GST

Tax Authority Order Overturned: Personal Hearing Crucial, Agency Services Dispute Sent Back for Fair Reconsideration

Yadgiri Seetharamaiah Versus The State Tax Officer, Chennai

In a tax dispute involving goods transport agency services, the SC found the tax authority's order unjust. The court set aside the order due to lack of ... Validity Of Order passed - No opportunity of personal hearing - inadvertent error committed while filing the GSTR 3B return was rectified while filing the annual return in Form GSTR 9 and the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR 9C - HELD THAT:- The impugned order reveals that the tax proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not file any documents in proof of its reply. The petitioner had annexed the profit and loss account and the GSTR 9 and 9C returns along with reply dated 18.08.2023. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner did not file any documents cannot be sustained although the petitioner did not file all the documents listed at pages 76 and 77 of the typed set. It is also noticeable that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. Thus, the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. W.P. is disposed of on the above terms and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Issues Involved: Challenge to an order dated 30.12.2023 related to goods transport agency services falling under reverse charge mechanism and tax liability.Summary:The petitioner, engaged in goods transport agency services, challenged an order dated 30.12.2023 following a show cause notice dated 18.08.2023. The petitioner had replied by annexing returns under GSTR 9 and 9C along with the profit and loss account. The petitioner contended that services fell under reverse charge mechanism and rectified errors in filings. The respondent pointed out the petitioner's failure to produce specified documents, leading to confirmation of tax proposal.The impugned order recorded that the taxpayer did not file proof of documents despite the petitioner having submitted certain documents along with the reply. The court found the conclusion unjust as some documents were submitted, and no personal hearing was provided. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner was allowed to submit additional documents within two weeks, and the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, before issuing a fresh order within two months.The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs incurred.