The amount of tax involved is only Rs. 1,31,998/- (Rs. 65,992/- x 2) and considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 41,475/- has already been recovered form the petitioner towards arrears of due under the impugned order, the impugned order stands quashed by giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file written objections or attend the personal hearing. By taking into account the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

T.M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

An order in original dated 18.08.2023 is assailed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner`s reply dated 29.07.2022 indicates that the sales turnover as per the return in Form CMP-08 was Rs. 6,37,595/-. In the impugned order, the turnover of Rs. 5,47,405/- was taken into account. It appears that this sum was compared with the purchase value as per the supplier`s GSTR 1 statement. The tax proposal was confirmed on the basis that the tax payer did not respond to the show cause notice. In view of the assertion that the tax payer could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity by putting the petitioner on terms.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

An assessment order dated 30.12.2023 is challenged on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The impugned order discloses that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice or utilize the opportunity of participating in personal hearings. Since the petitioner asserts that such participation was not possible on account of not being aware of the proceedings, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

An assessment order dated 18.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed solely because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. In view of the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.