GST demand confirmed on difference between GSTR 3B returns and GSTR 1 statement without the petitioner's participation. The court set aside the assessment order on terms: 10% of disputed tax to be remitted, reply permitted, personal hearing and fresh order within three months; bank attachment raised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.10651 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.10651 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.11723, 11725 & 11726 of 2024
Sre Panneerselvam Tex Rep. by its Karta Proprietor Mr.S.Panneerselvam 1/14, Sankagiri Main Road, Thiruchengod Taluk, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu 638 008. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pallipalayam Assessment Circle, Tiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District. ... Respondents
1/6
W.P.No.10651 of 2024
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the record relating to the order of the second respondent in GSTN No. 33AAHHS2225N1Z0/2022-23 order dated 13.11.2023 as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramesshkumar
For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, AGP (T)
ORDER
An order dated 13.11.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner submits that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the order impugned herein because such order was not communicated through any mode other than uploading on the GST portal.
2/6
W.P.No.10651 of 2024
accepts notice for the respondents. By referring to the impugned order, he points out that such order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 18.08.2023 and that a personal hearing was offered to the petitioner.
3/6
W.P.No.10651 of 2024
between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the GSTR 1 statement. It is also evident that the tax proposal was confirmed in view of the petitioner's failure to reply to the show cause notice. The show cause notice discloses that a personal hearing was offered to the petitioner on 25.08.2023. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be absolved of responsibility for non participation. At the same time, it should be recognized that the tax proposal was confirmed only because the petitioner failed to reply. In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, it is just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
4/6
W.P.No.10651 of 2024
and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the 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. In view of the fact that the assessment order has been set aside, the bank attachment is raised.
costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.11723, 11725 and 11726 of 2024 are closed.
23.04.2024
rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No
5/6
W.P.No.10651 of 2024
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
To
W.P.No.10651 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.11723, 11725 & 11726 of 2024
23.04.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessment order could stand where the taxpayer allegedly had no reasonable opportunity to reply to the GST show cause notice.
Whether the order should be remanded subject to conditions for fresh adjudication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sre Panneerselvam Tex Rep. by its Karta Proprietor Mr.S.Panneerselvam
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pallipalayam Assessment Circle, Tiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
