2024 (9) TMI 821 - HC - GST

Tax Dispute Resolved: Transport Agency Wins Partial Relief, Ordered to Pay 10% While Challenging Full Tax Assessment

Tvl. God Venkateswara Transport Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Deputy Commissioner (ST), The Bank Manager Chennai

The HC of Madras set aside the original tax demand against a goods transport agency, directing the petitioner to remit 10% of disputed tax and allowing a ... Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits - liability of GST - reverse charge mechanism - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax liability pertains to the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B. The petitioner contended that such mismatch occurred because the petitioner committed an inadvertent error while filling up the GSTR 1 statement by not indicating the amount in the appropriate row and column pertaining to supplies on reverse charge basis. Since such order was issued on the ground that the tax payer did not reply to the show cause notice, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 20.11.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the said period the petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice - petition disposed off. The High Court of Madras set aside the original tax demand order due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner to contest. The petitioner, a goods transport agency, seeks to establish services under reverse charge mechanism. The court directed the petitioner to remit 10% of disputed tax demand and allowed to reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order was disposed of, and the attachment was lifted.