GST Officer Must Consider Granting Additional Time for Reply When Repeated Adjournments Are Sought: Madras HC [Read Order]

The Madras High Court set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order observing that the Officer concerned always has to apply his mind while passing the order and non-providing the opportunity before passing the order is a waste exercise.

The Court, presided by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “when the taxpayer sought repeated adjournments, in those situation, the Officer can consider giving more time and also record the same in the order.”

The petitioner, Jakam Sekar Ranjith proprietor of M/s Sekar Textiles, challenged the impugned assessment order dated 27.02.2025, contending that it was passed without affording him a fair hearing.

Although the petitioner had filed replies explaining the discrepancy in sales turnover figures, the respondent dismissed them summarily for lack of documentaryevidence. No personal hearing was granted to the petitioner despite his submissions, thereby violating the audi alteram partem principle.

The bench stated that the denial of a personal hearing, particularly when factual disputes are involved, constitutes a serious procedural lapse. He noted that the Officer must not only ensure service of notice and receipt of reply but also actively engage with the assessee by pointing out what specific documents are required to justify the claim.

Moreover, if adjournments are requested, the Officer must judiciously consider them and duly record the reasons for either granting or denying further time in the assessment order itself, stated the court.

The bench added that failing to do so wastes administrative resources, results in needless litigation, and eventually has an impact on the tax collecting process.

“Thus, often, this Court noticed that without disclosing those things, the Officer is passing the order violating the principles of natural justice, which would not only vitiates the entire process, but also the loss for the exchequer” , said the bench while deciding the case.

Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter back to the original authority on condition of deposit of 10% pre-deposit. It directed the Officer to accept the payment within two weeks, allow the petitioner to file additional documentary evidence, and grant a minimum of 14 days' notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates