“Unsustainable”: Madras HC quashes GST Order Passed in name of Wrong Entity Despite Mentioning Correct GSTIN [Read Order]

In an important ruling, the Madras High Court ruled that a GST order which was wrongly passed in the name of a wrong entity despite quoting the correct GSTIN of the petitioner is unsustainable.

The petitioner, Tvl. Gopal Vinod Granites, represented by its proprietor Maya Devi, had approached the High Court challenging the impugned assessment and consequential demand order dated 23rd January 2024 issued under the GST Act for the financial year 2018-2019.

The petitioner contended that while the show cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal and no physical copy was served, they remained unaware of it and could not file a reply.

In addition, when the petitioner finally came to know of the order, it was discovered that the assessment had been passed in the name of a completely different entity M/s. Balaji Granites Industries even though the GSTIN quoted belonged to the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that the order was thus passed without any application of mind, violated principles of natural justice, and was liable to be struck down.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

The Government Advocate for the GST department admitted that while the show cause notice was indeed issued in the petitioner’s name, the final assessment order inadvertently mentioned M/s. Balaji Granites Industries instead, though the GSTIN was correct. The State agreed that such an error warranted the matter to be remanded for fresh proceedings.

After considering the submissions, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that passing an order in the name of an unrelated entity, even if the correct GSTIN is mentioned, reflects clear non-application of mind and renders the entire order unsustainable in law.

The Court noted that any order passed against a wrong entity cannot be enforced and such procedural lapses violate the fundamental principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned assessment and demand order and remanded the matter back to the tax authority for fresh adjudication.

The bench directed the petitioner to submit a reply along with supporting documents within four weeks and directed the department to issue a fresh notice with a minimum 14-day window for personal hearing before passing a new order strictly in accordance with law.

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