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.

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition against an order dated 01.12.2023 for the assessment year 2022-23. The Court granted liberty to file an appeal with the Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal) within 30 days. The Deputy Commissioner is to be impleaded and must dispose of the appeal within three months.

By these writ petitions, the order in original dated 30.12.2023 and the consequential recovery notice dated 13.05.2024 are challenged. In the impugned order, the petitioner`s response with regard to payment of interest was referred to. However, a finding was recorded that the interest amount does not tally. On examining the petitioner`s reply in comparison with the amounts indicated as payable towards interest, it appears that the amounts tally. As regards the ITC claim, the petitioner`s reply has been completely disregarded and a finding recorded that the tax payer did not reply on this point. In these circumstances, the impugned order and recovery notice warrant interference. The impugned order in original dated 30.12.2023 and recovery notice dated 13.05.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.

The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 26.04.2024 for the 2018-19 assessment year, filed a Writ Petition. The Court dismissed it, granting liberty to file an appeal with the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeals), Trichy within 30 days. If no appeal is filed, the respondent may proceed legally.

An order in original dated 28.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. On examining the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner`s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. Such proposal was confirmed on account of the petitioner not filing the reply to the show cause notice. By taking into account the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of such proceedings, 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.

An order in original dated 23.08.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal relates to the credit notes reflected in the auto populated GSTR 2A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Input Tax Credit was not availed of for the value of such credit notes. By taking the said submission into account and the assertion that the petitioner did not participate in proceedings on account of not being aware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. In this connection, it should be noticed that the petitioner remitted 12.5% of the disputed tax demand while filing the appeal.

If the address to which the communications are to be send is not updated, the State Tax Officer can sent notices only at the address provided and complete the adjudication proceedings. Having not intimated the correct address for communication, the petitioner cannot complain that there is violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not served with notice

An assessment order dated 18.03.2024 is assailed on the ground that it is unreasoned.

An order in original dated 12.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal related to a mismatch between the petitioner`s GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. It is also clear that such proposal was confirmed because the tax payer did not file objections or avail of personal hearing opportunity. 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.

An order in original dated 30.10.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the tax prayer did not respond to the show cause notice by filing objections. The impugned order indicates that the personal hearing notice dated 10.03.2023, reminder dated 29.05.2023 were sent by RPAD and that the latter was received by the petitioner on 01.06.2023. In these circumstances, the explanation of the petitioner that he was unaware on account of notices being uploaded on the GST portal cannot be accepted. At the same time, it is apparent that the tax proposal was confirmed without the petitioner being heard and liability was imposed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments. In these facts and circumstances, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 15% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Order –--- The petitioner challenged an order on the ground of non-application of mind and failure to consider the material placed on record by the petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioner has placed on record relevant notifications, which indicate that the tax rate on road works is 12%, even if the service is not provided directly to the government. Further the order was passed by assuming that 5% of the trade payables reflected in the financial statement were not paid within 180 days period. This conclusion is entirely speculative. It is just and necessary that the matter be remanded for reconsideration. Since a substantial tax demand is involved.