Syedsirajudeen vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Syedsirajudeen, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.10.2023, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to the tax period April 2021 - March 2022. The petitioner contended that while the show cause notice and the final order were uploaded on the GST portal, they were unable to access the portal, preventing their participation in the adjudication proceedings. The core of the dispute involved an alleged mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner claimed that technical glitches on the GST portal and the learning curve for the e-mechanism hindered their ability to respond to notices and the adjudication order. They expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to alleged technical issues with the GST portal, which prevented them from participating in the adjudication proceedings. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they were willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea, especially in light of the learned Government Advocate not having serious objections. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks. 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 orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court also ordered that garnishee proceedings initiated by the respondent be kept in abeyance until the petitioner complies with the deposit condition, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to resume recovery proceedings. The Court expressly left undecided any substantive issues regarding the alleged mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to technical issues with the GST portal, rendering the impugned order illegal? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unable to access the GST portal to participate in the adjudication proceedings, which included responding to show cause notices and the final order. They attributed this to technical glitches and the initial adaptation period to the GST e-mechanism. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024) where similar circumstances led to an opportunity being granted. Respondent's arguments: The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent did not raise any serious objection to the petitioner's request for an opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
GSTR-7, GSTR-3B
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 Order No.ZD331023081392T, dated 13.10.2023 for the period April 2021 - March 2022. 2. The impugned order is challenged on the premise that the show cause notices calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing as well as the impugned order was uploaded in the GST portal, the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and thus could not participate in the adjudication proceedings.
The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B. 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 and GSTR-3B. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is also submitted that under similar circumstances, this Court was pleased to grant an opportunity by placing 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. 5. 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 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 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 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.
It is submitted that garnishee proceedings has also been initiated by the respondent. In view of the order passed in the present writ petition setting aside the order of adjudication, the respondent shall keep the garnishee proceedings in abeyance until the expiry of the period of two weeks, within which the petitioner must pay 25% of the taxes that are due. If the petitioner fails to remit the disputed tax within the stipulated period, the respondent is at liberty to resort to recovery proceedings including garnishee proceedings. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. 21.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle, No.6, North Cotton Road, Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu-628 001. 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.