Tvl. Bharathi Electricals v State Tax Officer (28-03-2024)
- The petitioner, engaged in the trade of electrical goods, challenged an assessment order issued by the department.
- The primary contention was the lack of a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand.
- The petitioner argued that his consultant had failed to inform him about the initiation of proceedings against him, prompting a writ petition against the order.
- The Honorable High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had an obligation to monitor the GST portal regularly.
- However, the tax demand was confirmed without the petitioner being given a chance to be heard.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had already remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand.
- Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order to provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax demand.
- The department was directed to offer a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receiving the petitioner’s reply.
- The Honorable High Court concluded that while the petitioner was responsible for regularly checking the GST portal, the tax demand was confirmed without an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
- Recognizing this oversight, the Court set aside the impugned order to ensure procedural fairness.
- The department was directed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue a new order within two months of receiving the petitioner’s reply.
- This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for taxpayers to stay informed about ongoing proceedings.
