The GST order had been confirmed due to the petitioner’s failure to file objections or attend the personal hearing.

The Madras High Court has directed a reconsideration of the 10% pre-deposit requirement to set aside the GST (Goods and Services Tax) order in which the liability was confirmed due to no objections was filed on GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A Mismatch. A writ petition was filed by the Petitioner, C. Senthil Kumar challenged an original GST order dated December 12, 2023, on the grounds that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and impugned order were only uploaded to the GST portal and not communicated through any other means, resulting in the petitioner being unaware of the proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr.B.Raveendran submitted that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR-3B return and the auto-populated GSTR-2A. The counsel further submitted that, if given an opportunity, the petitioner could demonstrate that only eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed, in accordance with Circular No. 183. On instructions, the counsel stated that the petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. The principles of natural justice were observed, noting that intimation was given on June 5, 2023, followed by a show cause notice on September 8, 2023, and a personal hearing notice on November 14, 2023, maintained the respondent’s counsel. The court noted that the GST proposal arises from a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR-3B return and the auto-populated GSTR-2A. The order had been confirmed due to the petitioner’s failure to file objections or attend the personal hearing. With regards to the petitioner’s assertion of unawareness, the court deemed it just to provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits, conditional upon a pre-deposit. Therefore, the impugned order dated December 12, 2023, was set aside by the Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within this period. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receiving the petitioner’s reply and confirmation of receival of the 10% pre-deposit. Government advocate, Mrs.K.Vasanthamala appeared for the respondents.