Assessee Can't Be Absolved Of Responsibility As Registered Person To Monitor The GST Portal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that the assessee cannot be absolved of responsibility as a registered person to monitor the GST portal.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that an audit was conducted and that an audit report dated 15.09.2023 was issued. An intimation and show cause notice preceded the impugned order. It is noticeable that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not submit a reply along with supporting documents. Therefore, by putting the petitioner on terms, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner be provided an opportunity.

The petitioner/assessee is about 78 years old and was suffering from various illnesses. Consequently, it is stated that he was unable to respond to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings.

The petitioner contended that the petitioner would be in a position to respond to each of the five defects dealt with in the impugned order if provided an opportunity. The petitioner is willing to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

The department contended that an audit of the petitioner's books of account was conducted and that the intimation and show cause notice was subsequent to the issuance of the audit report to the petitioner. The sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner.

The court set aside order 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.

The court stated that 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 issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.

Counsel For Petitioner: A.Ilaya Perumal

Counsel For Respondent: V.Prashanth Kiran

Case Title: M/s.Bajrang & Bajrang Versus The State Tax Officer (FAC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 165

Case No.: W.P.No.9960 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.10982 & 10983 of 2024

Click Here To Read The Order