![]()
Non-consideration of Petitioner's
Payments and Clarifications, Constituting a Violation of the Principles of Natural
Justice
By Yogesh
Verma (CS/LLB) / 2 min. read / GST Case
Law
Case Title: M/s. Vijay Bio Fertilizer and Co. vs The
State Tax Officer, Erode Division
Case Numbers: W.P.
Nos. 20032 & 20041 of 2024
Date of
Order: 07.08.2024
Name of the
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Presiding
Judge: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Summary of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s.
Vijay Bio Fertilizer and Co., sought to quash the assessment orders for the
years 2019-20 and 2020-21 on the grounds that the respondent passed the orders
without considering the petitioner's replies and payments made for rectifying discrepancies.
The court set aside the assessment orders and remanded the case back
to the respondent, directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax for
each assessment year.
Facts of the Case:
1. M/s. Vijay Bio
Fertilizer and Co., an assessee with the respondent, received notices
highlighting discrepancies in the returns filed for the assessment years
2019-20 and 2020-21.
2. Show cause notices
were issued on 08.02.2024 in Form GST DRC-01, directing the petitioner to pay
the tax dues along with interest and penalty or file objections within 30 days.
3. The petitioner made
payments through DRC-03 and submitted clarifications, but the respondent passed
assessment orders confirming the proposed tax demand without considering the
petitioner's responses.
4. The petitioner claimed
the delay in filing returns was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which disrupted
operations, as minimal staff were available.
5. The petitioner
expressed willingness to pay 15% of the disputed tax for both assessment years
if granted an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
Submission by
Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel,
M/s. R. Hemalatha, argued that the respondent failed to consider the payments
and replies submitted in response to the notices. The council also highlighted
the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to delays in filing returns due
to limited staff. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present the case and
offered to pay 15% of the disputed tax for each assessment year.
Submission by
Respondent:
The respondent's counsel,
Mr. C. Harsha Raj (Additional Government Pleader), supported the orders passed
by the respondent but did not object to passing appropriate orders provided the
petitioner complied with specific conditions.
Findings and Judgement of
the Court:
1. The court observed
that the respondent passed the assessment orders without duly considering the
petitioner's payments and clarifications, constituting a violation of the
principles of natural justice.
2. The court set aside
the impugned orders and remanded the case to the respondent for fresh
consideration, directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax for both
assessment years.
3. The petitioner was
directed to file objections with supporting documents within two weeks of
payment.
4. The respondent was
instructed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing and to pass fresh
orders on merits within a reasonable timeframe.
Conclusion: The
court set aside the assessment orders and granted the petitioner another
opportunity to present their case, subject to the payment of 15% of the
disputed tax for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
