GST Personal Hearing Notice unnoticed for 3 Times: Madras HC grants Opportunity to Contest on 10% Pre-deposit from ECR [Read Order]
The assessee was given partial relief by quashing the impugned GST order and remitting the case back to the respondent by depositing 10%.
![GST Personal Hearing Notice unnoticed for 3 Times: Madras HC grants Opportunity to Contest on 10% Pre-deposit from ECR [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/GST-GST-Hearing-Notice-Madras-High-Court-Unnoticed-for-3-Times-10-Pre-deposit-from-ECR-taxscan.jpg "GST Personal Hearing Notice unnoticed for 3 Times: Madras HC grants Opportunity to Contest on 10% Pre-deposit from ECR [Read Order]")
In a matter where GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) personal hearing notice was unnoticed for 3 times, the Madras High Court granted an opportunity to contest on 10% pre-deposit from the Electronic Cash Register ( ECR ). The assessee, a small-time operator, failed to notice the show cause notices ( ASMT 10 dated 17.10.2022, DRC 01A dated 11.07.2023, and DRC 01 dated 19.08.2023 ) posted on...
In a matter where GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) personal hearing notice was unnoticed for 3 times, the Madras High Court granted an opportunity to contest on 10% pre-deposit from the Electronic Cash Register ( ECR ).
The assessee, a small-time operator, failed to notice the show cause notices ( ASMT 10 dated 17.10.2022, DRC 01A dated 11.07.2023, and DRC 01 dated 19.08.2023 ) posted on the GST common portal.
It was submitted that the assessee has also failed to notice the three personal hearing notices dated 26.09.2023, 30.10.2023 and 16.11.2023 and submitted the assessee may be given one opportunity to explain the case.
The respondent, representing the GST department, argued that the writ petition was time-barred and should be dismissed based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner ( CT ) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
They further contended that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (2008) 3 SCC 70.
Considering the submissions, the bench of Justice C. Saravanan of the Madras High Court view that the assessee may be given partial relief by quashing the impugned GST order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders subject to the assessee depositing 10% of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register.
The court directed that order shall be quashed and shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. It was instructed the assessee to file a reply within 30 days on deposit.
Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader appeared for the petitioner and respondent respectively.
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
