Assessee Cannot Be Absolved Of Responsibility As Registered Person To Monitor GST Portal: Madras HC
The Madras High Court observed that an Assessee cannot be absolved of responsibility as a registered person to monitor the Good Services Tax portal.
The Court directed the State Tax Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee for the disputed tax demand.
The Petitioner assailed the order passed by the State Tax Officer, Respondent herein, on the ground that a reasonable opportunity was not provided to contest the tax demand on merits.
The Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed, “On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that an audit was conducted and that an audit report dated 15.09.2023 was issued. It is also clear that an intimation and show cause notice preceded the impugned order. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be absolved of responsibility as a registered person to monitor the GST portal. At the same time, it is noticeable that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not submit a reply along with supporting documents. Therefore, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner be provided an opportunity.”
Advocate Advocate A Ilaya Perumal appeared for the Petitioners whereas Government Advocate V Prashanth Kiran appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner submitted that he can respond to each defects dealt in the impugned order if provided an opportunity and he was willing to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition.
The Court directed, “Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.”
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Bajrang & Bajrang v. The State Tax Officer
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate A Ilaya Perumal
Respondent: GA V Prashanth Kiran