The Madras High Court has set aside a GST order due to the failure of the authorities to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to establish the genuineness of the C-Forms submitted.
The Court directed the GST department to reconsider the matter, allowing the petitioner to submit a detailed reply along with the relevant documents concerning the C-Forms.
The case arises from a GST appellate order dated July 21, 2023, where the GST assessing officer was instructed to grant a concession on the turnover covered by the C-Forms after verifying their authenticity. The order under challenge was issued following those appellate directions.
Get a Copy of GST Ready Reckoner, Click here
Mr.Adithya Reddy, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the impugned order concluded that the C-Forms submitted by the petitioner were not genuine. However, this conclusion was reached without giving the petitioner a chance to establish the authenticity of the C-Forms, which was a significant procedural lapse.
On the contrary, the Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondent-GST department, argued that the impugned order was issued based on the appellate authority’s directive to specifically examine the genuineness of the C-Forms.
Get a Copy of GST Ready Reckoner, Click here
However, the High Court noted that the notice issued on January 19, 2024, preceding the impugned order, merely asked the dealer to submit certain documents but did not explicitly require the petitioner to prove the authenticity of the C-Forms. As a result, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to prove the genuinity of the C-Forms.
Thus, the bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy determined that the matter required reconsideration. It set aside the order and remanded the case back to the tax authorities for a fresh evaluation.
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply, along with all relevant documents concerning the C-Forms, within fifteen days from the receipt of the order. Furthermore, the department was directed to issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the petitioner’s reply, after ensuring that the petitioner is given a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
