Allowed

Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan v. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC26 Apr 2024WP/11010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a GST assessment order due to insufficient opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was permitted to file additional documents subject to remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand. The Respondent was directed to provide a fresh hearing and issue a new order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent directed to provide fresh hearing and issue fresh order within three months upon petitioner remitting 10% of disputed tax demand.

Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan Vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.11010 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.12092 & 12093 of 2024

¶7

Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) Loansquare Assessment Circle No.32, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai 600 003. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the Respondent in Order in Reference No.: ZD3312231242713 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the period 2017-2018 dated 18.12.2023 and quash the same as illegal and not in accordance with law and consequently direct the Respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings after providing 1/7

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

¶13

a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance

¶14

with law.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, AGP (T)

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

An order dated 18.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition

¶20

primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner asserts that he is engaged in the business of providing goods transport services. Consequently, it is stated that the services provided by the petitioner fall within the scope of the reverse charge mechanism. Upon receipt of notice in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 03.07.2023, the petitioner replied on 12.09.2023 by uploading such reply on the portal on 19.09.2023. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 18.12.2023.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the notice dated

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

¶25

03.07.2023 and pointed out that the petitioner responded to such notice by stating that the difference between the petitioner's GSTR 3B and Form 26AS is a result of the petitioner providing services that are charged to GST on reverse charge basis. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel points out that the respondent did not call for the documents referred to in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. If such documents had been called for, he submits that the petitioner would have submitted the same. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

¶26

Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶27

accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the affidavit of the petitioner, he submits that the case of the petitioner is that he could not avail of the personal hearing since he was suffering from viral fever. On the merits, he submits that the petitioner was under the obligation to establish that the services provided by him fall within

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

¶31

the reverse charge mechanism by submitting all necessary documents in such regard.

¶32

On perusal of the petitioner's reply, it is evident that the only documents enclosed with such reply are the GSTR 9, GSTR 9C and income tax documents. As contended by learned Additional Government Pleader, it was incumbent on the petitioner to provide all relevant documents to establish that the services fall within the scope of Section 9(3) of applicable GST enactments read with Notification No.13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Nonetheless, in the reply, the petitioner has asserted categorically that the services provided by him fall within the scope of the above provision and notification. Learned counsel also contends that the documents establishing transport of goods, including corresponding consignment notes, are available with the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms.

¶33

4/7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

¶36

For reasons set out above, impugned order dated 18.12.2023

¶37

is set aside subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice along with additional documents. Upon receipt of such reply 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 order within three months from the date of additional documents from the petitioner.

¶38

W.P.No.11010 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No

¶39

costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.12092 and 12093 of 2024 are closed.

¶40

26.04.2024

¶41

rna Index : No Internet : Yes

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

Neutral Citation: No

Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) Loansquare Assessment Circle No.32, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai 600 003.

¶48

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶49

rna

¶50

6/7

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.11010 of 2024

¶53

W.P.No.11010 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.12092 & 12093 of 2024

¶54

26.04.2024

¶55

7/7

¶56

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

Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan v. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan v. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

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

M/S Successmind Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sanjay Logistics Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s Emjay Steel Udyyog Private Limited Vs Interim Board For Settlement

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

Vela Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioenr St Fac

Tvl. Mataji Store Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)