2024 (7) TMI 412 - HC - GST

Tax Assessment Challenge Allowed: 20% Deposit Required, Fresh Order to Be Passed Within Two Months Under Section 264

Tvl. Ram Steel, Represented by its Proprietor Ramprasath Versus The State Tax Officer, Dindigul.

HC allowed challenge to tax assessment order for 2022-23. Directed petitioner to deposit 20% of disputed tax and submit detailed reply. Respondent ordered ... Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was unaware of the personal hearing - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the petitioner can be given fresh opportunity subject to the terms the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax as a condition for the respondent to take back the case afresh - This amount shall be paid by the petitioner from its Electronic Cash Register within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the reply filed by the petitioner is also not in detail, the petitioner shall file detailed reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with aforesaid deposit. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices that preceded the impugned order - Petition disposed off. Issues:- Challenge to impugned order for assessment year 2022-23- Lack of discussion in impugned order regarding reply to show cause notice and submissions during personal hearingAnalysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, which confirmed a demand of Rs. 5,98,768/- (IGST-Rs.1,21,898/- + SGST-Rs. 2,38,435/- + CGST-Rs. 2,38,435/-) for the assessment year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that their staff appeared at the personal hearing without proper knowledge, and the impugned order lacked any discussion on the reply to the show cause notice and the submissions made during the personal hearing. The petitioner, described as a small-time operator, sought to set aside the impugned order due to these deficiencies.The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and decided to grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days from the date of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to submit a detailed reply within 30 days from receiving the order along with the required deposit. The impugned order was quashed, with the directive that it should be treated as an addendum to the preceding show cause notices.Furthermore, the Court directed the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in compliance with the law promptly, preferably within two months from the date of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the outlined directions, and no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.