Tax Dispute Resolution: Petitioner Wins Challenge Against GST Order, Granted Opportunity to Rectify Clerical Errors and Receive Fair Hearing

HC ruled in favor of petitioner challenging GST tax order. Court set aside impugned orders due to violation of natural justice principles, directing respondent to reconsider case. Petitioner required to pay 15% disputed tax within four weeks, submit documents, and receive personal hearing. Order emphasizes procedural fairness and opportunity to rectify clerical errors in tax filings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order in Form GST DRC - 07 and Reference No.ZD3308231060700, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the order in Form GST DRC - 07 and Reference No.ZD3308231060700 issued by the respondent. The petitioner contended that they filed monthly returns in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 for the Financial Year 2021-2022 and paid tax liability. The respondent raised concerns about a tax amount difference between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 for July 2021, leading to various notices and actions by the respondent. The petitioner explained a clerical error in GSTR 3B but maintained correctness in GSTR 1, providing necessary bills. The respondent, however, issued further notices and orders without considering the petitioner's explanations, leading to the present challenge before the court.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, a bona fide dealer, regularly complied with tax obligations and lacked any malafide intentions or fraudulent activities. The counsel highlighted that the mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B was a clerical error, attributing the delayed response to the accountant's departure. The counsel urged the court to direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's submissions and grant another chance to prove their claim. Conversely, the Government Advocate for Taxes representing the respondent contended that the petitioner failed to respond or attend personal hearings, leading to the issuance of impugned orders based on available records.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case materials, the court acknowledged the discrepancy in the petitioner's tax liability filings for July 2021. It noted the petitioner's explanation of a clerical error and submission of necessary documents, which the respondent disregarded due to a delayed response, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The court imposed a condition for the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks, with the setting aside of orders effective upon payment. The petitioner was instructed to submit any objections and documents within two weeks thereafter, following which the respondent would review and decide on the matter after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner promptly.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the outlined terms, emphasizing no costs incurred. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

---