Quashed

M/S.Tristar Logistics v. State Tax Officer

Madras HC18 Apr 2024WP/10319/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a GST demand order and remanded the matter to the tax authority, observing that the petitioner was not effectively communicated with and denied a personal hearing. The court directed fresh proceedings and issued a fresh order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity of hearing.

M/S.Tristar Logistics Vs State Tax Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10319 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.10319 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.11318 & 11321 of 2024

¶8

M/s.Tristar Logistics, Represented by its Proprietor Hari Babu, No.123, Coral Merchant Street, Mannady, Chennai-600 001.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State Tax Officer, Muthialpet Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Room No.317, 3^rd floor, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶12

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Muthialpet Assessment Circle, No.32, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶13

Branch Operating Manager, M/s.Standard Chartered Bank, 19, Rajaji salai, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.No.10319 of 2024

¶18

relating to the impugned order bearing reference no.GSTIN 33AHSPB9111E2ZM/2017-2018 dated 06.10.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner bank account.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gowtham for Mr.G.Natarajan

¶20

For RR1 & 2 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate (T)

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

An order dated 06.10.2023 is the subject of challenge in this writ

¶23

petition.

¶24

The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings

¶25

culminating in the impugned order until his bank, Standard Chartered Bank, informed him about the order. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

¶27

was unable to respond to the show cause notice or attend the personal

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.No.10319 of 2024

¶31

hearing on account of being unaware of the same. He points out that such notice and order were uploaded on the portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. He points out that pursuant to the impugned order, the bank account of the petitioner was attached and the entire liability under the impugned order, including tax and penalty was appropriated from his bank account.

¶32

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts

¶33

notice for respondents 1 & 2. He points out that the intimation was issued to the petitioner in August 2023 and that the show cause notice was issued on 16.08.2023. He also points out that a personal hearing was

¶34

provided in September 2023 before the impugned order was issued.

¶35

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the tax liability pertains to the discrepancy between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns. It is also evident that the tax proposal was confirmed without the participation of the petitioner. At this juncture, the entire tax liability has been realised by appropriating the amount from the petitioner's bank account. As such, revenue interest stands fully secured. In these

¶36

circumstances, it is just and appropriate that an opportunity be provided

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶38

W.P.No.10319 of 2024

¶39

to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶40

Solely for reasons set out above, the impugned order dated

¶41

06.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the 1^st respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. For the avoidance of doubt, it is made clear that amounts appropriated from the petitioner's bank account shall abide by the outcome of the remanded proceedings.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any

¶43

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶44

closed.

¶45

18.04.2024

¶46

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶47

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/6

W.P.No.10319 of 2024

State Tax Officer, Muthialpet Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Room No.317, 3^rd floor, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶53

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Muthialpet Assessment Circle, No.32, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

5/6

¶56

W.P.No.10319 of 2024

¶57

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.No.10319 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.11318 & 11321 of 2024

¶60

18.04.2024

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

6/6

M/S.Tristar Logistics v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Tristar Logistics v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Stanely Hitech Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

Tvl Stanely Hitech Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

S Saravanan Vs the State Tax Officer

Shriniwas Impex Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S. A.K. Imports and Exports Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Tvl.Vishal Agencies, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)