The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to contest the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Liability on a pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax demand. The bench observed that the liability was confirmed due to non-response to Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) as it was uploaded in the GST portal.
The Petitioner, Jones Enterprises contended that they were unaware of the proceedings leading to the impugned orders since notices and orders were only uploaded on the GST portal without any other form of communication. The petitioner argued that they could explain the discrepancy in returns due to delayed reporting by the supplier and had already remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand.
Regarding the order dated 13.02.2023, the petitioner argued that the requirement to file an annual return in Form GSTR 9 only applies if turnover exceeds Rs. 2 crores, which was not the case for them in the relevant financial year.
The petitioner has placed on record evidence of remittance of sum of Rs.54,640/- towards the disputed tax demand relating to order dated 22.06.2023. Examining the order, the court observed that the tax liability proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or participate in the personal hearing.
The Madras High Court, On a 10% pre-deposit of disputed demand, the petitioner was allowed to contest the GST demand.
In the interest of justice, a Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to submit replies to the show cause notices within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within three months of receiving the petitioner’s replies.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
