The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition against the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) order, stating that the inability to utilise an allotted opportunity is not equivalent to the denial of an opportunity to be heard.
The applicant, Falcon Synergy Engineering Private Limited, has contested the order issued on 08.08.2024 under section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
An SCN was furnished dated 16.05.2024 in the proceedings of the fiscal year 2019-20, observing that excess Input tax is taken via the applicant for the cited year.
A reminder notice on 24.06.2024, and again on 04.07.2024, was sent to the applicant when the applicant did not answer. The applicant did not answer and did not take a personal hearing when granted. Subsequently, the impugned order has been issued by the state tax officer.
On 29.01.2025, the applicant submitted a rectification petition, which the authority did not accept.
Read Also:- Kerala HC: Full Payment of Building Tax Mandatory Unless Amnesty Applies
The impugned order of determination of tax has been contested by the applicant claiming that they were not allotted a chance of hearing, and also that the excess input tax availment emerges from a clerical error, and if appropriately appreciated, there shall be no obligation. The clerical mistake of the staff has consequences in the bigger obligation levied on it, the applicant mentioned.
Under the perusal of the impugned order, it is determined that the applicant has provided an opportunity to answer in the Show Case Notice form, followed by three reminders. The applicant is a business establishment conducting regular business activities.
In 2024, the show cause notice was issued, even if only available on the portal, is a form of notice specified by the rule. As a private limited company, the applicant cannot claim ignorance of this notice or the reminder notices that were sent over three months ago. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the petitioner was not allowed to present their case.
Unable to take the granted opportunity is not similar to the failure to grant an opportunity of hearing, a single bench of Justice Kurian Thomas held.
The bench observed that the applicant did not get nervous because he was not provided with a hearing opportunity. The applicant is responsible for not taking the opportunity; respondents must not be blamed.
Also Read:- Kerala HC: College Canteen Run by Trust Liable for Registration under KVAT Act, 2003
The petition has been dismissed by the court, stating that the applicant must prefer the regulatory remedies.
| Case Title | Falcon Synergy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. V/S Assistant State Tax Officer & Others |
| Case No. | WP(C) NO. 8377 OF 2025 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Advs. K.N.sreekumaran and P.J Anilkumar |
| Counsel For Respondent | Adv. Jasmin M.M. Government Pleader |
| Kerala High Court | Read Order |
