The Madras High Court has quashed the order demanding Goods and Service Tax (GST) Order which was passed under misconceptions that imported goods as timber instead of bone meal. The court directed to grant time to the petitioner to file a reply and pass appropriate orders after providing the opportunity of a personal hearing.
he proceedings of the 1st respondent in Order in TIN 33962282895/11-12 dated 13.10.2021 and notice dated 12.07.2022 and bank attachment notice in Form U dated 02.08.2022 issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent and quash these orders and notices as arbitrary and illegal.
Jose Bone Products, the petitioner is in the business of supplying bone meal and they had not at all imported any goods. Under these circumstances, the 1st respondent had issued a notice dated 14.07.2015, wherein they had asked for the details of the imported goods from the petitioner. Thereafter, before the filing of the reply, the impugned order was passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only in the business of selling bone meal and they had not at all imported any materials. It was argued that the 1st respondent had wrongly understood the petitioner had imported timber and other products and demanded the tax amount by the prior notice. Further, the 1st respondent had passed the aforesaid impugned order without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner.
The petitioner is in the business of supplying bone meal and they had not at all imported any materials at any point in time. However, the notice was issued by the 1st respondent as if the petitioner had imported timber and the said information is said to have been obtained by the 1st respondent from the Customs Department. Further, according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner had received the show cause notice and they had not filed any reply for the said notice.
the supply of bone meal is exempted from the VAT duty and hence, he is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the notice was issued by the respondent under the wrong assumption that the petitioner had imported timber. Thereafter, the impugned order was also passed, in violation of the principles of natural justice, without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing.
It was a settled law that any order had to be passed only after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. A single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy the petitioner had passed the impugned order under the misconception that the petitioner had imported timber, which is contrary to the business of the petitioner.
While setting aside the said order, the Court remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to grant time to the petitioner for filing a reply and passing appropriate orders after providing the opportunity for a personal hearing within 3 months.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
