2024 (5) TMI 969 - HC - GST

Tax Demand Order Quashed: Petitioner Granted 30 Days to Respond, Respondent Directed to Issue Fresh Order Within 60 Days

M/s. CC. Engineering Constructions, represented by its Proprietor D. Yesunesan Versus The State Tax Officer

HC quashed the impugned tax demand order against petitioner, directing respondent to issue fresh order within 60 days. Petitioner was granted 30 days to ... Excess claim of ITC - demand with interest and penalty - petitioner submit that one fresh opportunity may be given to the petitioner to explain the case in detail with the respondent - HELD THAT:- A fresh opportunity can be given to the petitioner, as admittedly the petitioner has not responded to the notices that were issued by the respondent - Although the respondent cannot be found fault for passing the impugned order, the fact remains that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and it would be better if the petitioner is able to produce the documents before the Original Authority. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,53,278/- has been recovered from the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the respondent is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order confirming demand, penalty, and interest u/s GSTIN. Summary:The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent confirming demand, penalty, and interest. The respondent imposed a total sum of Rs. 4,49,318/- on the petitioner for the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner failed to respond to notices and did not appear for a personal hearing, resulting in an adverse assessment order. The petitioner claimed that the mistake was on the part of the supplier who filed an incorrect return, indicating the petitioner as a customer and not a business person. The petitioner requested a fresh opportunity to explain the case in detail. The respondent argued that despite multiple notices and opportunities given to the petitioner, there was no response, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner did not furnish details for excess ITC claimed and discrepancies in input details. The court decided to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent for fresh orders within 60 days, directing the petitioner to respond within 30 days. The writ petition was allowed with no costs. This judgment highlights the importance of responding to notices and participating in proceedings to address tax-related issues effectively.