2024 (7) TMI 99 - HC - GST

Tax Dispute Resolution: Partial Payment Required, Respondent Must Provide Fair Hearing and Issue New Order Within 90 Days

Abishek Suppliers, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs. Praveena Rajesh Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai

HC set aside tax order challenging GSTR discrepancies, directing petitioner to remit 10% of disputed tax demand and submit reply to show cause notice. ... Inability to upload the reply to the SCN - explanation sought for disparity between the GSTR 1 statement and the GSTR 3B return - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal, which pertains to the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and 3B, was confirmed solely because the tax payer failed to reply to the show cause notice. In the facts and circumstances outlined above, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period - the petition is disposed off. Issues: Challenge to order on inability to upload reply to show cause notice, disparity between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B, compliance with principles of natural justice, setting aside the impugned order, remittance of disputed tax demand, providing opportunity to contest tax demand, disposal of writ petition.In this case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 16.04.2024, citing inability to upload a reply to a show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on 14.12.2023, prompting the petitioner to explain the disparity between the GSTR 1 statement and the GSTR 3B return. The petitioner requested time to reply on 12.01.2024 but failed to upload the response. The petitioner claimed that the mismatch arose from inadvertently uploading only specific transactions in the GSTR 1 statement. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.The Government Advocate contended that principles of natural justice were followed in issuing the show cause notice and the subsequent order. The impugned order confirmed the tax proposal due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice. However, the court found that justice required providing an opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks and submits a reply to the show cause notice within that period.Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and satisfaction of the remittance, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner. A fresh order was to be issued within three months from the date of receiving the petitioner's reply. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment aimed to uphold principles of natural justice while ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand based on the disparity between the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns.