In the matter of
Tvl.Sri Metals Vs. State tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai
W. P. No. 1911 of 2025 And W. M. P. Nos. 2189 and 2190 of 2025
M/s Tvl. Sri Metral (“The Petitioner”) is engaged in the business of trading metal scrap. For FY 2019-20, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the same was uploaded on GSTIN of the petitioner. However, such SCN was not served on the petitioner through RPAD. The petitioner did not furnish any response against such SCN and accordingly, the impugned order was issued based on DRC-01 itself.
The Petitioner contended that the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. If the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, they would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the Impugned order and the petitioner was allowed to submit the objections subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
Article:
1. Brief facts of the case:
- M/s Tvl. Sri Metals (“The Petitioner”) is engaged in the business of trading of metal scrap and is registered under GST.
- During FY 2019-20, the Petitioner filed the applicable GST Return.
- Later on, a notice in DRC-01 was issued to the petitioner on account of ineligible ITC on 24.05.2024. Further, reminders were issued for personal hearings on later dates.
- However, the petitioner neither filed its reply nor availed the opportunity for a personal hearing.
- Therefore, the Ld. officer issued the impugned order based on DRC-01 itself.
2. Contention of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that:
- Neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order have been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD. However, the same had been uploaded on the GST Portal only.
- Therefore, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.
- If the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, they would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.
- Reliance was placed upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 where the matter was remanded back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 25% of the disputed taxes.
3. Findings and Analysis by Hon’ble High Court
The Hon’ble High Court disposed off the petition on following terms:
- The impugned order is set aside.
- The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed taxes within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- If any amount has been recovered or paid out of the disputed taxes, including by way of pre-deposit in appeal, the same would be reduced from the 25% of disputed taxes directed to be paid.
- The assessing authority shall then intimate the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of the order.
- The petitioner shall deposit the remaining sum within 3 weeks of receipt of such intimation.
- Failure to make payment of 25% of disputed taxes shall result in restoration of the impugned order.
- On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material.
- If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed under law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Order
The Hon’ble High Court has held that:
- The Impugned order is set aside;
- The Petitioner is required to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and post payment, the impugned order shall be considered as SCN and shall be dealt with accordingly.
5. Conclusion
Granting an opportunity of being heard is a constitutional right and every taxpayer should be granted an opportunity before passing any adverse order against him. Hon’ble High courts set aside numerous assessment orders daily on minor discrepancies like failure to upload SCN on GST Portal, not sending SCN through RPAD. However, it is pertinent to note that section 169 of CGST Act provides that any decision, order, notice, etc. can be served by any one of the methods i.e. direct tendering, courier/ speed post, sending a communication to e-mail address, uploading on GST portal, etc. Taxpayers must establish effective systems to monitor communications originating from the GSTN portal, which are well recognized methods of service of notice under the GST legislation.
