Disposed

M/S. Revathi Readymades v. the Deputy State Tax Officer 1

Madras HC23 Apr 2024WP/10645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment for 2018-19 based on GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A mismatch was challenged for lack of hearing. The court set aside the order subject to remittance of 10% of the disputed tax demand and remanded for fresh assessment after personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.04.2023 set aside subject to 10% remittance; remand for fresh assessment after personal hearing within three months.

M/S. Revathi Readymades Vs the Deputy State Tax Officer 1 — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10645 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.10645 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.11713 & 11714 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Revathi Readymades, Represented by its Partner, Mr.T.Rajkumar, No.36 and 38, Madhavaram High Road, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Villivakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai 600 099.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in GSTIN: 33AAHFR0532P1Z3 / 201819 dated 28.04.2023 and the impugned summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.04.2023 issued in Reference No.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.10645 of 2024

¶15

ZD330423143765G and quash the impugned orders as passed contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act, 2017 and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, GA (T)

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

An order in original dated 28.04.2023 is challenged on the

¶21

ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶22

The petitioner asserts that the show cause notice and

¶23

impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal, but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. Consequently, it is stated that the petitioner was unaware of these

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.10645 of 2024

¶27

proceedings until he was informed by the respondents about alleged arrears relating to assessment year 2018-19.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. If provided an opportunity, he submits that the petitioner would be in a position to explain the reasons for the discrepancy. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand on condition for remand.

¶29

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate,

¶30

accepts notice for the respondents. He points out that the impugned order is dated 28.04.2023 and the petitioner has approached the Court belatedly. He also points out that the order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 30.12.2022 and that a personal hearing was offered to the petitioner.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.10645 of 2024

¶34

As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order pertains to the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. Such order was issued without hearing the petitioner and the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice. While the petitioner cannot be absolved of responsibility in such regard, it is just and necessary that the petitioner be provided an opportunity after putting the petitioner on terms.

¶35

For reasons set out above, impugned order dated 28.04.2023 is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Upon receipt thereof and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.10645 of 2024

¶39

respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶40

W.P.No.10645 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.11713 and 11714 of 2024 are closed.

¶41

23.04.2024

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Villivakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai 600 099.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.10645 of 2024

¶48

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶49

rna

¶50

W.P.No.10645 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.11713 & 11714 of 2024

¶51

23.04.2024

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

M/S. Revathi Readymades v. the Deputy State Tax Officer 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Revathi Readymades v. the Deputy State Tax Officer 1

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

Medi Sales India Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S.Mrm Construction Vs State Tax Officer ( Intelligence)

Nagaraj Sangiah Vs The Superintendent Of Gst Central Excise (Grp -Iv)

Kcp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pradeep Yadav, IAS and others

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board, Vs the Additional Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise

Sre Panneerselvam Tex Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes