Taxpublishers.in - Latest/08_GST_01 - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 134 Views


www.taxpublishers.in Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 73 Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 Determination of tax--*Opportunity of personal hearing not provided to assessee--Validity of* *Conclusion:* Where assessment order was passed against the assessee without considering the relevant documents submitted by it and without giving it opportunity of personal hearing, the said order was liable to be set aside. Assessee was engaged in the business of providing goods transport agency services. Upon receipt of show cause notice, the assessee explained that goods transport agency services fell within reverse charge mechanism and, therefore, it was not liable to pay taxes. Further, an inadvertent error committed in filing GSTR-3B return was rectified while filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9 and the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C. However, the revenue authority confirmed the demand of tax on the ground that the assessee did not file any documents in proof of its reply. *Held:* Assessee annexed the profit and loss statement and GSTR-9 and 9C returns along with its reply. Therefore, the conclusion that the assessee did not file any documents was not sustainable. Further, no personal hearing was provided to the assessee before passing the impugned assessment order. Hence, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-consideration. *Decision:* In favour of assessee by way of remand IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Yadgiri Seetharamaiah v. STO W.P. No. 9846 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 10865 and 10866 of 2024 15 April, 2024 Petitioner by: Harini, S.P. Respondent by: T.N.C.Kaushik Addl. Government Pleader (Taxes) ORDER An order dated 30-12-2023 is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing goods transport agency services. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 18-8-2023, the petitioner replied on 18-9-2023 by annexing the returns under GSTR 9 and 9C and the profit and loss account. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 30-12-2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply to the show cause notice and pointed out that the petitioner explained that goods transport agency services fall within the reverse charge mechanism and that the petitioner was not liable to pay taxes. He also pointed out that the inadvertent error committed while filing the GSTR 3B return was rectified while filing the annual return in Form GSTR 9 and the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR 9C. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that it was wrongly recorded therein that the petitioner did not file a reply. 4. Mr. T.N.C. Koushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the petitioner had been called upon but failed to produce the eight documents listed at pages 76 and 77 of the typed set. In those circumstances, he submits that the tax proposal was confirmed. 5. In the impugned order, in the operative portion thereof, it is recorded as under: The taxpayer has asked for time to file reply. However despite a lapse of two months, the taxpayer did not file proof of documents in support of their claim in their replies or explained their stand in person. Therefore in the absence of proper documents it was construed that the taxpayer's have nothing to say in support of their claim. Also as the orders under section 73 have to be completed by 31-12-2023, the proposal as above is confirmed as under. The above extract reveals that the tax proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not file any documents in proof of its reply. The petitioner had annexed the profit and loss account and the GSTR 9 and 9C returns along with reply dated 18-8-2023. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner did not file any documents cannot be sustained although the petitioner did not file all the documents listed at pages 76 and 77 of the typed set. It is also noticeable that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. 6. For reasons set out above, the impugned assessment order dated 30-12-2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file any additional documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of such additional documents from the petitioner. 7. W.P.No.9846 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

www.taxpublishers.in

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 73

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226

Determination of tax--Opportunity of personal hearing not provided to assessee--Validity of

Conclusion: Where assessment order was passed against the assessee without considering the relevant documents submitted by it and without giving it opportunity of personal hearing, the said order was liable to be set aside.

Assessee was engaged in the business of providing goods transport agency services. Upon receipt of show cause notice, the assessee explained that goods transport agency services fell within reverse charge mechanism and, therefore, it was not liable to pay taxes. Further, an inadvertent error committed in filing GSTR-3B return was rectified while filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9 and the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C. However, the revenue authority confirmed the demand of tax on the ground that the assessee did not file any documents in proof of its reply. Held: Assessee annexed the profit and loss statement and GSTR-9 and 9C returns along with its reply. Therefore, the conclusion that the assessee did not file any documents was not sustainable. Further, no personal hearing was provided to the assessee before passing the impugned assessment order. Hence, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-consideration.

Decision: In favour of assessee by way of remand

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Yadgiri Seetharamaiah v. STO

W.P. No. 9846 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 10865 and 10866 of 2024

15 April, 2024

Petitioner by: Harini, S.P.

Respondent by: T.N.C.Kaushik Addl. Government Pleader (Taxes)

ORDER

An order dated 30-12-2023 is challenged in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing goods transport agency services. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 18-8-2023, the petitioner replied on 18-9-2023 by annexing the returns under GSTR 9 and 9C and the profit and loss account. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 30-12-2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply to the show cause notice and pointed out that the petitioner explained that goods transport agency services fall within the reverse charge mechanism and that the petitioner was not liable to pay taxes. He also pointed out that the inadvertent error committed while filing the GSTR 3B return was rectified while filing the annual return in Form GSTR 9 and the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR 9C. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that it was wrongly recorded therein that the petitioner did not file a reply.

4. Mr. T.N.C. Koushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the petitioner had been called upon but failed to produce the eight documents listed at pages 76 and 77 of the typed set. In those circumstances, he submits that the tax proposal was confirmed.

5. In the impugned order, in the operative portion thereof, it is recorded as under:

The taxpayer has asked for time to file reply. However despite a lapse of two months, the taxpayer did not file proof of documents in support of their claim in their replies or explained their stand in person. Therefore in the absence of proper documents it was construed that the taxpayer's have nothing to say in support of their claim. Also as the orders under section 73 have to be completed by 31-12-2023, the proposal as above is confirmed as under.

The above extract reveals that the tax proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not file any documents in proof of its reply. The petitioner had annexed the profit and loss account and the GSTR 9 and 9C returns along with reply dated 18-8-2023. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner did not file any documents cannot be sustained although the petitioner did not file all the documents listed at pages 76 and 77 of the typed set. It is also noticeable that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference.

6. For reasons set out above, the impugned assessment order dated 30-12-2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file any additional documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of such additional documents from the petitioner.

7. W.P.No.9846 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.