Disposed

Vetri Vinayaka Metal Mart v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC29 Apr 2024WP/10677/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment orders confirming input tax credit reversal for purchases from a non-existent dealer were challenged on the ground of lack of opportunity. The court set aside both orders on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand and permits fresh adjudication after hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vetri Vinayaka Metal Mart Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.10677 and 10685 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP.No.10677 and 10685 of 2024 WMP.Nos.11769, 11770, 11775 and 11776 of 2024

¶7

Vetri Vinayaka Metal Mark by its Proprietor B.Alangara Vadivel, Coimbatore-641006

¶8

Petitioner-Both WPs

¶9

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Ganapathy Assessment Circle Coimbatore 641018

¶11

Respondent-Both WPs

¶12

Prayer:- These Writ Petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of Respondent, in orders dated 16.11.2023 in GSTIN:33AMDPA8996L1ZM/201819 and GSTIN:33AMDPA8996L1ZM/2019-20 respectively and to quash the same.

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Two assessment orders dated 16.11.2023 are challenged in these Writ Petitions on the ground that the Petitioner did not have reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶16

By contending that the Petitioner was unaware of the notices and the impugned orders since the same were uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, the present Writ Petitions have

¶17

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP.No.10677 and 10685 of 2024

¶19

been filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that input tax credit was reversed on the ground that the Petitioner had purchased goods from a non-existent dealer. Learned counsel further submits that if an opportunity is provided, the Petitioner would be in a position to establish that the purchases were genuine. On instructions, he submits that the Petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period as a condition for remand.

¶21

Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the Respondent. He submits that the impugned orders were preceded by a show cause notice dated 12.01.2023 and personal hearing notices dated 16.02.2023 and 03.10.2023.

¶22

Upon examining the impugned orders, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the Petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner would be able to establish that the purchases were genuine if an opportunity is provided. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the Petitioner on terms.

¶23

For the reasons set out above, the impugned orders are set aside on condition that the Petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid

¶24

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP.No.10677 and 10685 of 2024

¶26

period, the Petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the respective show cause notice along with all relevant documents to establish that the purchases are genuine. Upon receipt of such documents and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment period was received, the Respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Petitioner's reply.

¶27

With the above directions and terms, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.

¶28

29.04.2024

¶29

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm

¶30

¶31

The The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ganapathy Assessment Circle, Coimbatore 641018

¶32

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

WP.No.10677 and 10685 of 2024

¶34

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶35

Srcm

¶36

WP.No.10677 and 10685 of 2024

¶37

29.04.2024

¶38

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vetri Vinayaka Metal Mart v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vetri Vinayaka Metal Mart v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathyamurthy Giridaran Vs Assessment Unit/ Verification Unit/ Technical Unit/ Review Unit

Vela Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioenr St Fac

Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Bsh Household Appliances Manufacturing Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl.Bhavani Agencies Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl.B.L.Collection Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer