The Madras High Court has upheld a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order after the assessee failed to submit a reply within the 90-day extension granted by the GST authorities.
The petitioner, M/s Sri Balaji Pharma Surgicals had filed a writ challenging the order issued by the respondent on April 22, 2024, which demanded tax, interest, and penalties for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was issued without adequate opportunity for a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
According to the petitioner’s counsel, an initial notice was issued by the respondent on October 19, 2023. In response, the petitioner requested a 90-day extension on December 2, 2023, citing the need to review documents thoroughly before filing a proper reply.
Despite this request, the petitioner claimed that the respondent proceeded with the assessment order, failing to provide a fair chance for the petitioner to respond.
However, Mrs. K. Vasanthamala Government Advocate (Taxes), the government’s counsel countered that due process had been followed. The petitioner was notified through a show cause notice, which explicitly invited them for a personal hearing on December 7, 2023. Despite the 90-day extension requested and subsequently granted, the petitioner neither submitted a response nor attended the hearing. Given the petitioner’s inaction, the respondent proceeded with issuing the assessment order on February 22, 2024.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy found that the petitioner had ample time and opportunity to respond but failed to take any action. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were upheld as the petitioner was given due notice and an extended period to respond.
As a result, the court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue an appeal with the appropriate appellate authority within 30 days. The appellate authority was instructed not to enforce any limitation period for this appeal. The petition was dismissed with no costs, and all related 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
