In W.P. (MD) No.14027 of 2023 -MADR HC- Madras High Court rules in favour of M/s. M.B.M. Steels, says petitioner not given opportunity for personal hearing to present their documents, remits the matter back for fresh consideration
Justice P.T. Asha [15-06-2023]

Read Order: M/s. M.B.M. Steels v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Tuticorin I Assessment Circle

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, July 10, 2023: The High Court of Madras has ruled in favour of M/s. M.B.M. Steels (petitioner) in a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The court noted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing to present their documents, which could disprove the claim made by the respondent authority.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner was found to have availed input tax credit from a non-existent taxpayer. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) issued an order confirming the proposal to recover a sum of Rs. 71,604/- along with a penalty of the same amount under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that while they had received a notice and a show cause notice, no notice of a personal hearing had been issued thereafter, either through the portal or by post.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the show cause notice issued against the petitioner was based on the claim that the supplier, Sun Steels, was non-existent. However, the counsel provided evidence to disprove this claim, showing that Sun Steels was a registered entity under GST and had duly paid taxes for the supply made to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel stated that if the petitioner had been granted a personal hearing, he could have clarified these facts to the respondent authority. This fact was not refuted by the respondent.

The single-judge bench of Justice P.T. Asha acknowledged that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing to present their documents. Consequently, the court set aside the challenged order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration.