The Madras High Court set aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order noting that the GST department neither considered reply nor provided any hearing opportunity before passing the demand order. Mr. C. Baktha Siromani, the petitioner, submitted that he mistakenly claimed Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the IGST Act while filing monthly returns for March 2018. The error was promptly rectified by reversing the ITC claim in April 2018. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the annual returns in Form GSTR-9 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here

Despite the rectification, the department initiated proceedings against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice, which was uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal. This led to the petitioner being unaware of the notice and consequently unable to file a timely response. The GST department, without granting opportunity to present the case, issued the impugned order. It was also submitted that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the replies dated 23.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 were filed by the petitioner.

However, the same was not considered by the department. Hence, the petitioner requested the Court to pass appropriate orders by directing the respondent to consider the reply filed and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case before the respondent. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here

However, the government advocate, Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate  submitted that the department had uploaded the show cause notice in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to submit a reply in time and therefore, the impugned assessment order came to be passed.

Further, she also submitted that since the petitioner filed his replies after the passing of assessment order, the respondent has no occasion to deal with the same. Therefore, she requested this Court to pass appropriate orders to remit the matter back to the respondent. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the respondents had neither considered the reply nor provided any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Thus, it set aside the order as the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.