M/S.Amk Athencottasan Muthamizh Kazhagam Man Power Services vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Amk Athencottasan Muthamlzh Kazhagam Man Power Services, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order in Form GST DRC 07, dated 08.06.2022, passed by the State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-1. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and the detailed assessment order were not properly uploaded on the portal, and they were only provided with a summary of the order, thus denying them a proper opportunity to respond. The respondent, represented by the Government Standing Counsel, argued that both the show cause notice and the detailed order were duly uploaded, and the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner had submitted a reply, they failed to furnish relevant documents to support their claims. Acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the opportunity to present their case, the Court decided to grant an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case more fully. This was conditioned upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the respondent. The petitioner would then be at liberty to appear before the respondent, file additional replies, and submit supporting documents for consideration. The respondent would then be required to pass orders in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity to present their case, considering the alleged improper uploading of the show cause notice and the detailed assessment order on the GST portal, as per principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not properly uploaded, and they were not granted a sufficient opportunity to respond. They further contended that only a summary of the detailed order was made available, not the full order itself, which prejudiced their ability to understand and contest the assessment. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the show cause notice and the detailed order were indeed uploaded to the portal. They also stated that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice, which was considered by the assessing authority during the assessment process.