GST Dept not at Fault for issuing Order without Hearing as assessee Missed Two Prior Chances: Madras HC dismisses Petition [Read Order]

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for quashing the recovery order issued by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department issued without providing hearing as the assessee missed two opportunities given earlier . The court directed to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.

The writ petition challenged an order dated August 29, 2023, issued by the respondent, initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The core of the petitioner’s argument was that the order was passed without providing a fair opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice.

In response, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunities for personal hearings. Initially, the petitioner was given a chance to present their case on March 15, 2023.

Know When to Say No to Cash Transactions, Click Here

However, the petitioner failed to appear. Subsequently, on April 12, 2023, a second opportunity was provided, with a deadline for filing a reply set for April 20, 2023, which the petitioner also missed.

The petitioner’s request for an additional eight weeks to file a reply was made on April 27, 2023, but no reply was received even after the extended period. Consequently, the impugned order was issued on August 29, 2023.

The Court noted that the original show cause notice was issued on December 23, 2020, and was previously addressed in a batch of cases before this Court. Following these proceedings, a personal hearing was scheduled for March 15, 2023, and subsequently for April 20, 2023. Despite multiple accommodations, including additional time granted for filing a reply, the petitioner did not avail themselves of these opportunities.

Know When to Say No to Cash Transactions, Click Here

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the respondent had indeed made great efforts to provide the petitioner with fair chances to be heard. The repeated failures of the petitioner to appear or respond justified the respondent's decision to proceed with the order.

The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s inability to utilise the provided opportunities could not be attributed to the respondent-department's  fault. Given that the petitioner had alternative remedies available through the appeal process, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Know When to Say No to Cash Transactions, Click Here

However, recognizing the petitioner's claim that the appeal period had expired, the Court allowed an additional 30 days from the date of receiving the order for the petitioner to file an appeal. The authorities were directed to accept the appeal without insisting on the limitation period, provided the appeal was otherwise in order.

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