GST Assessment Challenged: Procedural Violations Found, Orders Set Aside, 10% Tax Payment Directed, Fresh Hearing Ordered

HC upheld petitioner's challenge to GST assessment orders for 2017-2018, finding procedural violations of natural justice. Court set aside impugned orders and GST DRC-13 notice, directing petitioner to pay 10% disputed tax, file reply, and receive personal hearing. Bank account attachment was lifted, and the matter was remanded to tax authority for fresh proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders and GST DRC-13 notice for attachment of Bank Account for assessment year 2017-2018.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges impugned orders dated 29.12.2023 and the consequential GST DRC-13 notice for the attachment of a Bank Account for the assessment year 2017-2018. The respondent demanded a payment based on a mismatch of tax liability between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A filed by the petitioner. The petitioner's GST registration was canceled, and they were unaware of the show cause notice and subsequent order passed by the respondent. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case, agreeing to pay 10% of the disputed tax demand. The Additional Government Pleader suggested remanding the matter to the Authority concerned upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

The Court considered submissions from both sides and found that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal without the petitioner's knowledge, violating principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and the GST DRC-13 notice, remanding the matter to the first respondent. The petitioner was directed to pay 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks, file a reply within two weeks thereafter, and the respondent was instructed to issue a clear notice for a personal hearing within 14 days after receiving the petitioner's reply.

The Court also directed the lifting of the attachment on the petitioner's Bank account, considering that the impugned orders were set aside. The second respondent was ordered to defreeze the Bank account immediately upon the production of a copy of the Court's order if it was attached. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of this judgment.

---