Sesappan.S vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, S. Sesappan, a registered GST assessee and work contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Sattur. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner stated that while they filed monthly returns (GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B), discrepancies were noted between GSTR-1 and GSTR-7, which were treated as suppression of outward tax supply. Notices in Form ASMT-10, DRC-01A, and DRC-01 were issued, along with personal hearing intimations via email. However, the petitioner claimed they were unaware of these notices as they were uploaded to the GSTIN portal, and they faced technical glitches and were adapting to the e-mechanism, preventing them from responding.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 was to be set aside. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the impugned assessment order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would be required to submit their objections along with supporting documents within four weeks. The respondent was then directed to consider these objections and pass orders in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court stipulated that if the deposit or objections were not filed within the stipulated periods, the impugned order of assessment would stand revived. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea regarding the violation of natural justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 19.06.2023, passed by the respondent, is illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity of personal hearing, as contemplated under the GST Act? The petitioner argued that due to technical glitches in the GST portal and their difficulty in adapting to the e-mechanism, they were unable to access the notices and participate in the adjudication proceedings. Consequently, they were denied a fair opportunity to present their objections. The petitioner further submitted that they are willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and requested a final opportunity to present their case. The respondent, through the Government Advocate, did not raise any serious objection to this request.
Sections Cited
ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.06.2023 on the premise that the impugned proceedings is made in violation of principles of natural justice.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a work contractor and has executed works contract for various Government authorities. He is also registered under GST Act and had also filed monthly returns reporting inward and outward supplies in the prescribed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. On scrutinizing of the returns, there were certain discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-7 which were treated as suppression of outward tax supply. The petitioner was stated to have been issued notice in Form ASMT-10 followed by notice in DRC-01A and DRC-01 and personal hearing intimations were also sent via e-mail.
It is submitted by the petitioner that they were unable to respond to the notices inasmuch as they are not aware of the notices which were uploaded in the portal. Thus, the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and was unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the introduction of GST, there were several technical glitches in the portal and the assessees were also taking time to adapt to the e-mechanism and it was only in view of the same that the petitioner was unable to respond to the above notices and the order of adjudication. It was further submitted that that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
In view thereof, the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or the objections not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., two weeks and four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order respectively, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05.09.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr To: The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Sattur-1 Assessment Circle, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Nsr
2024 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.