2024 (6) TMI 1380 - HC - GST

Taxpayers Win Relief in GST Assessment Challenge, Ordered to Deposit 10% While Seeking Fair Hearing on Portal Notice Gaps

M/s. Jayanth Ship Chandlers, Represented by its Proprietor S. Jayasingh Raja Versus The State Tax Officer, Tuticorin.

HC granted relief to petitioners challenging GST assessment orders for 2017-18, finding merit in their claim of lack of portal notice awareness. Court ... Challenge to assessment orders - petitioner were unaware of the notices that were posted in the GST common portal - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the petitioners may have a case on merits and therefore, discretion is exercised in favour of the petitioners and quashed the impugned order, subject to the respective petitioners depositing 10% of disputed tax to the credit of the respective respondents from their Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The impugned orders, which stand quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices that preceded the impugned orders. The petition is disposed off. Issues:Challenges to impugned orders for assessment year 2017-18 due to lack of awareness of notices on GST common portal. Time-barred nature of Writ Petitions and appellate remedy under GST enactments.Analysis:The petitioners challenged impugned orders dated 12.12.2023 and 26.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18, claiming they were small scale operators unaware of notices on the GST common portal. The learned Additional Government Pleader argued the petitions were time-barred, citing the decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The petitioners' counsel contended that the appellate remedy was also time-barred as per Section 107 of GST enactments, referencing Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others.The Court considered the arguments and found merit in the petitioners' case, granting relief by quashing the impugned orders. However, the petitioners were directed to deposit 10% of disputed tax to the credit of the respondents within 30 days from the order's receipt. The quashed orders were to be treated as addendum to the preceding show cause notices. The petitioners were instructed to file their reply within 30 days, and the respondents were to pass fresh orders on merits within three months, subject to the deposit, ensuring the petitioners' right to be heard.In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the above directions, without imposing costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.