2025 (1) TMI 884 - HC - GST

Court Finds Show Cause Notice Issued Unjustly, Emphasizes Need for Detailed Reasoning and Natural Justice Principles.

The HC addressed three main issues: the issuance of a show cause notice without prior intimation, the failure to consider the petitioner's reconciliation ... Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's reconciliation report - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had not responded to the said notice and therefore a reminder was sent on 06.07.2024. The petitioner had sent a reply to the show cause notice on 06.07.2024 through online portal clearly stating that according to the comparison sheet under the GST system between GSTR 3B Vs. GSTR-2A, the petitioner had excess credit of Rs. 1,40,684/-. He had also attached the reconciliation report. A perusal of the reconciliation report clearly shows that after adjusting the amount towards IGST, CGST and SGST, an amount of Rs. 1,40,684/- was still available. This reconciliation statement has not been taken note of by the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent would simply state that the reply is not accepted. The reason for not accepting the explanation has not been spelt out in the impugned order. The impugned order is a one line non-speaking order. Such an order cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to consider the afresh the demand in the show cause notice and the reply - Petition allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the issuance of the show cause notice without prior intimation in FORM GSTASMT-10 constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.Whether the respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's reconciliation report and explanation amounts to a breach of procedural fairness.Whether the impugned order, being a non-speaking order, is legally sustainable.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Issuance of Show Cause Notice Without Prior IntimationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) govern the procedures for issuing show cause notices. The requirement for prior intimation is typically to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the respondent issued a show cause notice directly without serving an intimation in FORM GSTASMT-10, which is a procedural step intended to inform the taxpayer of discrepancies before formal proceedings.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that the lack of prior intimation prevented them from adequately addressing the alleged discrepancies.Application of Law to Facts: The court found that bypassing the intimation step undermines the principles of natural justice, which require that a party be given a fair opportunity to present their case.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent did not provide sufficient justification for omitting the intimation step.Conclusions: The court concluded that the issuance of the show cause notice without prior intimation was procedurally flawed.Issue 2: Failure to Consider the Reconciliation ReportRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that all evidence and explanations provided by a party be duly considered before passing an order.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court observed that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's reconciliation report, which clearly demonstrated an excess credit.Key Evidence and Findings: The reconciliation report indicated an excess credit of Rs. 1,40,684/- after adjustments, which was not acknowledged in the impugned order.Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the respondent's disregard for the reconciliation report constituted a violation of procedural fairness.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's one-line rejection of the petitioner's explanation lacked substantive reasoning.Conclusions: The court determined that the respondent's failure to consider the reconciliation report was a breach of the principles of natural justice.Issue 3: Non-Speaking OrderRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A non-speaking order is one that lacks detailed reasoning and fails to disclose the rationale behind the decision, which is contrary to established legal principles.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the impugned order merely stated, 'Taxpayer reply was not accepted,' without providing any reasoning.Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of detailed reasoning in the order rendered it non-speaking and unsustainable.Application of Law to Facts: The court emphasized that orders must articulate the reasons for rejecting a taxpayer's explanation to ensure transparency and accountability.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The lack of explanation from the respondent undermined their position.Conclusions: The court concluded that the non-speaking nature of the order necessitated its setting aside.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'Taxpayer reply was not accepted. Hence the above proposal is confirmed.'Core Principles Established: The principles of natural justice require prior intimation, consideration of all evidence, and detailed reasoning in orders.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration with instructions to complete the process within four weeks.