HC Sets Aside GST Demand for Errors and No Hearing | Matter Remanded

Case Details: Hind Aluminium Company vs. State Tax Officer [2025] 180 taxmann.com 371 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Saravanan, J.
• P. Rajkumar for the Petitioner.
• C. Harsha Raj, Special Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner received a show-cause notice for the year 2019–20 and filed detailed replies. However, the Department confirmed the demand by relying on certain figures which, according to the petitioner, contained clear computational mistakes particularly in the comparison between E-way Bill data and GSTR-1 disclosures. The petitioner also claimed that despite filing written replies, they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, due to which the errors in the calculation could not be explained. The impugned order was therefore challenged as being passed without proper verification of data and in violation of principles of natural justice.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case on merits regarding the alleged computational errors. Taking note of the fact that no statutory appeal was filed, the Court adopted a justice-oriented approach and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The authority was directed to grant a personal hearing, permit filing of written submissions, and pass a fresh order on merits within three months. In case of non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, the Department was permitted to proceed with recovery as per law.