Madras HC sets aside assessment order disallowing ITC for non-filing GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C due to improper service of show cause notice

The Madras HC set aside an assessment order disallowing ITC due to non-filing of annual returns in Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for AY 2018-19. The court found that the show cause notice was only uploaded on the GST Portal without proper service to the petitioner, who remained unaware of it. The assessing officer passed the final order without providing opportunity for personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the condition that petitioner pay 10% of disputed tax amount within four weeks.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment addresses the following core issues:

• Whether the impugned orders dated 08.03.2024 and 11.03.2024 issued by the respondent are valid, given the alleged procedural lapses, including the failure to issue a mandatory intimation in Form GST DRC-01A as per Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules.
• Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the lack of a personal hearing and proper notification to the petitioner.
• Whether the calculation of late fees and tax liabilities by the respondent was in accordance with the provisions of the CGST and TNGST Acts.
• Whether the mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B justifies the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Orders

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner contends that the orders were issued without mandatory intimation in Form GST DRC-01A, violating Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules. The petitioner cited a precedent from the Allahabad High Court, which quashed a similar demand order due to the absence of a show cause notice.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the orders were issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The notices were uploaded on the GST Portal, but the petitioner claimed unawareness of these notices due to the lack of a physical copy.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court noted the procedural lapses, including the failure to issue a mandatory intimation and lack of personal hearing, as grounds for setting aside the orders.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent admitted that no personal hearing was provided and suggested remanding the matter for reconsideration.
• Conclusions: The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to certain conditions.

Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision is made.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized the importance of providing a personal hearing and proper notification to uphold natural justice.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner was not served a hard copy of the notice and was unaware of the proceedings until a phone call from the respondent.
• Application of Law to Facts: The lack of a personal hearing and proper notification constituted a breach of natural justice.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent acknowledged the procedural oversight and agreed to a remand.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the orders were issued in violation of natural justice and required reconsideration.

Issue 3: Calculation of Late Fees and Tax Liabilities

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 47(2) of the TNGST Act limits late fees to a maximum of 0.25% of turnover.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found inconsistencies in the respondent's calculations, which exceeded the statutory maximum.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The respondent's orders demanded fees exceeding the statutory limit, contradicting their own annexure.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court noted the incorrect application of Section 47(2), leading to excessive demands.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the calculations were erroneous and exceeded legal limits.
• Conclusions: The court found the calculations flawed and required reassessment.

Issue 4: Reversal of Input Tax Credit

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner argued that ITC should not be disallowed due to a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B when transactions are genuine.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue, focusing instead on procedural fairness.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner held a certificate supporting the genuineness of transactions.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court's decision to remand the case implies a need for further examination of this issue.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's argument was not directly addressed but remains open for reconsideration.
• Conclusions: The issue was left for reassessment upon remand.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The impugned order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice."
• Core Principles Established: The necessity of adhering to procedural requirements, including issuing mandatory notices and providing personal hearings, to uphold natural justice.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax and the respondent providing a personal hearing.

---