The court directed R.B. Traders to submit their reply, objections, and any relevant documents to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receiving the court’s order.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has ordered a fresh hearing for R.B. Traders in the case of R.B. Traders vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (W.P. No. 25810/2024). The court’s decision comes after recognizing lapses on the part of the GST consultant, which led to the applicant missing critical proceedings. Notably, R.B. Traders had already deposited 90% of the disputed tax amount.
Background of the Case
R.B. Traders contested an order issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Respondent 1), seeking to have it quashed on grounds of being contrary to law. The applicant highlighted that communications and notices related to the case were uploaded under the “Additional Notices Column” of the GST portal. As a small business entity, R.B. Traders was unaware of these notices and relied entirely on their GST consultant for compliance. However, the consultant failed to notify or update them about the proceedings, resulting in the applicant missing the opportunity to submit a response within the stipulated time.
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice
The applicant argued that the impugned order was issued without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, R.B. Traders emphasized that they had already paid approximately 90% of the tax dues before the authority.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, after examining the documents and pleadings, observed that the order was issued without providing the applicant an opportunity for a personal hearing. This constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice. The bench also acknowledged that R.B. Traders had paid 90% of the disputed tax amount, further strengthening their case for a fair hearing.
The Madras High Court set aside the impugned orders and lifted the attachment on the applicant’s bank accounts. The court directed R.B. Traders to submit their reply, objections, and any relevant documents to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receiving the court’s order.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring fair representation, especially for small businesses that rely on external consultants for compliance. By ordering a fresh hearing, the Madras High Court has provided R.B. Traders a vital opportunity to present their case on merits and within the bounds of the law.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, setting a precedent for similar cases involving lapses in communication and procedural compliance.
Also Read: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules against Dismissing GST Appeal for Non-Payment of Fees
READ MORE
Quasi-Judicial Order Must Allow an Opportunity to Be Heard: Allahabad HC Ruling
Orissa High Court Stays GST Notice U.S.74 Consolidating Multiple Assessment Years: Key Details