The Madras High Court, while remanding the matter on 10% Pre-deposit condition, observed that the taxpayers must regularly monitor the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) portal.
A Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoothy observed that “As a registered person under applicable GST enactments, the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal on an ongoing basis. Therefore, the explanation provided by the petitioner is not entirely convincing.”
The Petitioner, Gayatri Granites is engaged in the business of supplying granite, sandstone and related products. Upon examining the returns of the petitioner, notice in Form ASMT 10 was issued on 17.02.2023. This was followed by intimation dated 25.03.2023 and show cause notice dated 20.06.2023.
The impugned order was issued thereafter on 16.08.2023. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings since the notices and orders were uploaded in the “View additional notices and order” tab of the GST portal, but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to the mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. If provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, he submitted that the petitioner would be in a position to explain the discrepancy. On instructions, the counsel submitted that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
Mrs. K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities in the form of a notice in Form ASMT 10, an intimation and a show cause notice. She also pointed out that a personal hearing was offered on 30.06.2023.
The bench emphasised that as a registered entity under the relevant GST regulations, the petitioner bears the responsibility of regularly monitoring the GST portal. Consequently, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was deemed insufficient. The tax demand was primarily confirmed due to the petitioner’s failure to respond to the show cause notice and participate in the personal hearing.
Accordingly the writ petition was disposed of setting aside the order and the matter is remanded for reconsideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
