In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court viewed that no order can be passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It set aside the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order and the attachment order on 10% pre-deposit.
Justice Krishan Ramasamy noted that all notices were only available under “Additional Notices/Orders,” which the assessee may not have accessed. The lack of opportunity for the assessee to defend their case constituted a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The court deemed the impugned order and the attachment order void.
Get a Copy of GST Smart Guide, Click here
The petitioner-assessee, Fashion Square’s counsel argued that the respondent had only sent correspondence through the online portal under “Additional Notices/Orders” without directly informing the taxpayer.
Although uploading to the GST portal is recognized as a valid service mode, the counsel asserted that this court highlighted that at least one notice should have been served in compliance with Section 169(1)(a)(b)(c) of the GST Act.
It was also submitted that the failure to serve a physical copy to the petitioner left them unable to submit a written objection. Additionally, the GST Act mandates a personal hearing, which the respondent neglected to provide before issuing the contested order, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice.
As a result of the attachment order, the petitioner’s bank account was frozen, hampering their business operations. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner asserted that the impugned orders should be set aside.
The counsel of the GST department argued that the notices were uploaded on the web portal and the petitioner’s absence from the personal hearing was their responsibility. However, the counsel acknowledged that any court order would be followed by the respondent.
Get a Copy of GST Smart Guide, Click here
The high court set aside the impugned order and the attachment order conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax demand within four weeks of receiving the court’s order. Once the deposit is made, the department was directed to lift the attachment order.
Dr. D. Vijayakumar and Mr.V. Prashanth Kiran appeared for the petitioner and the respondents respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
