In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to contest the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand on pre-deposit condition in the matter where the petitioner failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) and attend the personal hearing on grounds of diagnosis of cancer.
The petitioner, B.L. Collection engaged in the business of buying and selling cloth and apparel, cited a compelling reason for their inability to respond to the show cause notice or partake in proceedings. They had been diagnosed with cancer in 2021, rendering their participation in legal matters untenable.
Presenting the petitioner’s case, the counsel emphasised that the tax proposal stemmed from discrepancies between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. Given an opportunity, the petitioner asserted their capability to elucidate these discrepancies.
Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, Government Advocate representing the respondents, highlighted the procedural steps taken, including the issuance of notices and personal hearing opportunities to the petitioner.
Upon thorough examination of the impugned order, a single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy court observed that the tax proposal had been confirmed solely on grounds of the petitioner’s non-response and absence at the personal hearing. Considering the petitioner’s medical condition and the principles of justice, the court deemed it appropriate to afford the petitioner a chance to present their case.
The court set aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. However, this remand was subject to the condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks, as agreed. The petitioner was also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within this timeframe.
Furthermore, once the petitioner’s reply was received and the remittance confirmed, the respondents were directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, including a personal hearing. A fresh order was to be issued within three months from the receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
As a consequence of setting aside the order in original, any bank attachment associated with the matter was lifted. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition on the outlined terms, refraining from imposing any costs. Subsequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
