Tvl. Risvan Agency vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Risvan Agency, represented by its Proprietor Mr. Jahabar Ali, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Pudukottai-II Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that neither the show cause notice nor the final order was served on them. They claimed ignorance of the show cause notice uploaded on the GST common portal and stated that their accountant failed to inform them. The petitioner also argued that the impugned order, which was passed without physical service, is unsustainable. They further submitted that if given an opportunity, they could demonstrate that the alleged discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1, which formed the basis of the order, does not exist. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.12.2023. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's plea of non-service of notices and the order, coupled with their assertion that they could demonstrate the absence of discrepancies, warranted a fresh opportunity. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding technical glitches in the GST portal and the adaptation period for assessees. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the impugned order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would have four weeks to submit their objections with supporting documents. The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court stipulated that if the deposit or objections were not filed within the stipulated periods, the original impugned order would stand revived. The issue of whether the alleged discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 actually existed was left to be decided in the fresh assessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the respondent for the period 2017-2018, is liable to be quashed for alleged non-service of show cause notice and the final order, thereby violating principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal and a gross violation of natural justice because neither the show cause notice nor the final order was served upon them. They claimed to be unaware of the show cause notice being uploaded on the GST portal and that the final order was not physically served. The petitioner asserted that they could prove the absence of the alleged discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 if given an opportunity. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The petitioner also cited technical glitches in the GST portal and the learning curve for assessees as reasons for their inability to respond. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not raise any serious objection to the petitioner's request for a fresh opportunity, particularly concerning the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.