Case Details: RAJESH MANOHAR PUJARA Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)- (2025) 26 Centax 253 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
- Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana, for the Petitioner.
- Shri C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in retailing industrial hardware, claimed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) for 2017-18. Following scrutiny, notices were issued, but it was argued that they were not properly served. The petitioner contended that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD, instead it had been uploaded in “view additional notices” column in GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order of assessment due to this improper method of communication, which prevented a response to the allegations. The petitioner, willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax, sought court intervention for a fair opportunity to contest the matter.
High Court Held
The Honourable HC set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. Upon compliance, the impugned order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner was to submit objections within the same period. If objections were filed, they would be considered, and orders passed after a hearing. If the deposit or objections were not submitted on time, the impugned order would stand restored. The Court also ordered the immediate lifting of the bank attachment upon payment of the deposit. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected petitions were closed allowed.
List of Cases Cited
- K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise — (2024) 21 Centax 128 (Mad.) — Followed [Para 6]
