Tvl Ramsingh Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order is set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the order was not properly served and that they were unable to access the portal to participate in the proceedings. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of technical glitches and adaptation issues with the GST portal. The Court also noted the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and the respondent's lack of serious objection to granting a final opportunity. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee demonstrates a plausible reason for non-participation due to procedural infirmities or technical issues, and offers to comply with certain conditions, a final opportunity for adjudication should be granted to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks and then submit objections within four weeks, treating the impugned order as a show cause notice. The respondent is to consider these objections and pass orders after affording a hearing. Failure to comply will revive the original order.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ramsingh Agency, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders dated 31.10.2023 and 13.11.2023, and a reference number dated 20.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were not properly served, having been uploaded to a common portal which the petitioner could not access, thereby preventing participation in adjudication proceedings. The core of the dispute involved alleged mismatches between GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner claimed technical glitches and adaptation issues with the GST portal contributed to their inability to respond.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders are vitiated due to improper service, specifically by uploading to a common portal that the petitioner could not access, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that non-service of the order and inability to access the portal prevented them from participating in the adjudication, thus violating their right to be heard. They relied on the judgment in M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The respondent did not raise serious objections to the petitioner's request for an opportunity. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted a final opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancies between GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B, subject to certain conditions? (Question of mixed law and fact). The petitioner contended that with an opportunity, they could explain the discrepancies. They also offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.