In a recent ruling, the Madras HC observed that the GST (Goods and Services Tax) registrants are obliged to monitor the portal on an ongoing basis. The court set aside and remanded the matter for reconsideration on 10% pre-deposit condition.
The petitioner, M/s M.B.Travels asserted that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the order impugned because the notice and order were uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any of the other modes prescribed in Section 169 of applicable GST act.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the alleged date of personal hearing is blank in the reference column and similarly, the date of personal hearing is also blank in the body of the order. On instructions, he submitted that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
On the contrary, the respondents counsel pointed out that the impugned order was preceded by a notice in Form ASMT 10 dated 11.07.2023, show cause notice dated 18.08.2023 and more than one personal hearing notice.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the petitioner is obliged to monitor the GST portal regularly as a GST registered person. Thus, the explanation unsatisfactory on awareness of GST proceedings due to notices uploaded only in GST portal and not communicated through any other mode is not satisfactory, stated the court.
Despite this, upon reviewing the impugned order, it was evident that the tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitioner’s alleged non-response to the show cause notice and non-participation in proceedings. Thus, the court decided to provide the opportunity contest on merits.
In the interest of justice, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. However, it mandated the petitioner to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks, agreeing to contest the tax demand on merits.
The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice and relevant documents within the given period. Upon satisfaction of the remittance and receipt of the petitioner’s reply, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months. The writ petition was disposed of on terms without any order as to costs.
V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate and M.A.Mudimannan appeared for the respondents and petitioner respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
