Fair Hearing Prevails: Tax Dispute Resolved with Balanced Approach, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Contest Merits Under Principles of Natural Justice The SC reviewed a tax demand case where the petitioner challenged an order due to lack of opportunity to contest merits. The court set aside the original ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Fair Hearing Prevails: Tax Dispute Resolved with Balanced Approach, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Contest Merits Under Principles of Natural Justice
The SC reviewed a tax demand case where the petitioner challenged an order due to lack of opportunity to contest merits. The court set aside the original order, directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax and allowing submission of a reply. The respondent must provide a fair hearing and issue a fresh order within two months, effectively giving the petitioner a chance to present their case while partially securing the tax claim.
Issues Involved: The judgment involves the issue of contesting a tax demand on merits due to lack of reasonable opportunity and failure to inform the petitioner about proceedings culminating in the impugned order.
Contesting Tax Demand on Merits: The petitioner challenged an order dated 03.03.2023, claiming they did not have a fair chance to contest the tax demand on merits. It was argued that the consultant responsible for GST compliances failed to keep the petitioner informed about the proceedings leading to the impugned order. The confirmed tax demand was attributed to belated filing of returns, and the petitioner expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand for a remand.
Respondent's Position and Court's Observation: Mr. T.N.C.Kaushik, representing the respondents, highlighted that the show cause notice was followed by reminders to the petitioner. He emphasized the petitioner's delayed approach to the Court and the issuance of the order in March 2023. The impugned order was based on the petitioner's late filing of returns and non-participation in the proceedings, leading to the confirmation of the tax demand due to the petitioner's failure to reply. The Court noted the need to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
Court's Decision and Directions: After reviewing the impugned order, the Court set it aside under the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was also allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. Upon receiving the petitioner's reply and confirming the receipt of 10% of the disputed tax demand, the first respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months from receiving the petitioner's reply. The case was disposed of on these terms, with no costs incurred.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.