G Parthiban vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, G. Parthiban, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 27, 2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Tuticorin, for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that neither the show cause notice nor the assessment order was served personally, but rather uploaded to the GSTIN common portal, which they were unable to access. This prevented them from participating in the adjudication proceedings. The respondent argued that a notice under DRC-01A was issued, but the petitioner neither filed a reply nor appeared for a personal hearing. The core of the dispute involved alleged TDS mismatch between GSTR 7 and GSTR-3B/GSTR 1, and outward supplies mismatch between GSTR-9 and GSTR-3B.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding technical glitches and the challenges in adapting to the GST portal, which led to their inability to respond to notices and participate in the proceedings. 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. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the assessment order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would have four weeks to submit objections with supporting documents. The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Failure to comply with the deposit or objection filing timelines would result in the revival of the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order, passed for the financial year 2018-19, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-service of notices and the inability of the petitioner to access the GST portal for participation in proceedings, as contemplated under the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is illegal due to the non-service of show cause notices and the final order, and their inability to access the GSTIN portal prevented them from participating in the proceedings. They cited technical glitches and the learning curve for e-mechanisms as reasons for their non-response. They also expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their case. Reliance was placed on the High Court's judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that notice was issued under DRC-01A, but the petitioner failed to file a reply or attend the personal hearing.
Sections Cited
DRC-01A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order issued by the respondent in GSTIN: 33AFTPP5441G1Z7, dated 27.07.2023 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. The impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner and it had been uploaded in the GSTIN common portal. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that though notice was issued under DRC-01A, the petitioner had neither filed a reply nor appeared for the personal hearing. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged TDS mismatch between GSTR 7 vs GSTR-3B and GSTR 1 and alleged outward supplies mismatch between GSTR-9 vs GSTR3B. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies between GSTR 7 vs GSTR-3B and GSTR 1 and between GSTR-9 vs GSTR3B.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P. (MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024. 6. 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 the petitioner is 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 is set aside. 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 along with supporting documents/material within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or the objections are 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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions stand closed. 13.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle, Tuticorin. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
, J.
BTR
2024
6/6 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.