The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months

The Madras High Court has set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter, granting the petitioner a personal hearing, on the grounds that the order was unreasonable and failed to consider the petitioner’s reply. The petition sought to quash the impugned order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the order was arbitrary and illegal, as it did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner regarding the mismatch between GSTR 3B and the auto-populated GSTR 2A returns. The petitioner, represented by S. Ramanan, argued that the impugned order was issued just one day after the third reminder, without taking into account the petitioner’s reply. The petitioner had explained in the reply that they had migrated to a new GST number due to difficulties in using the original number. C. Harsha Raj, appearing for the respondent, maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to avail of Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in a different GST number. He argued that the principles of natural justice were followed, and the petitioner’s submissions were duly considered. The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that although the petitioner’s reply was extracted in the impugned order, the assessing officer merely recorded that the reply was not acceptable and confirmed the liability without providing any reasoning. The court held that since the conclusion was not supported by reasons, the impugned order was unsustainable. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the court’s order.