Vinayaka Steels vs State Tax Officer (Circle), Krishnagiri – I, Dharmapuri, Salem

Can the reply and explanations of the Taxpayer be rejected by the Department with a one-liner that “dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far”? Facts of the case: The State Tax Office issued Form ASMT-10 The taxpayer filed a reply to this on 08-Feb-2022 Pre-Assessment Notice was issued in Form DRC-01 on 25-May-2022 The taxpayer did not file a reply to this Notice The Oder was passed on 24-Jun-2022 by way of a cryptic one-liner stating ‘dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far’. High Court held: Authorities under section 74 of GST Laws have to hear the person prior to passing any order. The way this Order is passed with one-liner such an order is liable to be set aside.

1. Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent and is armed with instructions to enable final disposal of this matter, even at the stage of admission. 

2. The impugned order is dated 24.06.2022 and the present Writ Petition has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation for filing appeal. Howver, learned counel for the petitioner makes a tentative attempt to challenge the service of the order itself. There is thus no serious objection raised by the learned Government Advovcate to the maintainability of this Writ Petition. 

3. The main ground argued relates to the violation of principles of natural justice. The pre-assesment notice in DRC-01 has been issued on 25.05.2022 and the order proceeds on the basis of the petitioner’s reply filed on 08.02.2022 in response to a verification of the petitioner’s return in Form ASMT – 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not responded to notice dated 25.05.2022. 

4. Be that as it may, it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated 08.02.2022 by way of a cryptic one liner stating ‘dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far’ 

5. The confirmation of proposals in the manner as aforesaid, leaves me in no doubt that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. Let notice be issued afresh, the petitioner heard and orders passed in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today. 

6. This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court 

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law