Detailed Reply on 8 Defects found During GST Inspection Ignored: Madras HC Sets Aside Order [Read Order]

The Madras High Court set aside the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner with regards to the 8 defects found during the GST inspection. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration.

The High Court has addressed challenges against orders dated 13th March 2024 pertaining to distinct assessment periods. Central to the petitions is the contention that the petitioner's responses were not adequately considered.

The dispute arose following an inspection of the petitioner's business premises, resulting in intimation and show cause notices citing approximately eight defects. The petitioner duly responded separately to each defect, but the impugned GST orders were issued without sufficient regard to these submissions.

Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that while the orders referred to the petitioner's responses regarding each defect, they failed to specify reasons for rejecting these replies.

Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, appearing for the government, asserted that procedural requirements such as issuance of intimation, show cause notices, and opportunities for personal hearings were adhered to.

After examining the order, the court stated that it became evident that while the petitioner's responses were acknowledged, no detailed findings were recorded explaining the rejection of these replies.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy specifically observed that the petitioner had provided comprehensive explanations, such as addressing discrepancies between their GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 statements, yet the orders merely stated the replies were inadequate without substantive discussion. Consequently, due to the failure to sufficiently consider and justify the rejection of the petitioner's responses, the court concluded that the impugned orders could not be upheld.

The High Court set aside the original orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted a two-week window to submit any additional documents, with instructions for the respondent to provide a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before issuing fresh orders within three months from the receipt of additional submissions. The court disposed of the writ petitions accordingly.

Mr.Anil Bezawada for Ms.Lavanya P.R. appeared for the petitioner.  

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates