Disposed

Tvl. Mataji Store v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC26 Apr 2024WP/11168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order based on discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A was challenged for lack of reasonable opportunity. The court set aside the impugned order on condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand, file a reply, and receive a fresh personal hearing before a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside on condition of remitting 10% of disputed tax; reply permitted; fresh personal hearing and fresh order within three months.

Tvl. Mataji Store Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11168 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.11168 of 2024

¶7

¶8

WMP Nos.12235 & 12236 of 2024

¶9

Tvl. Mataji Store Represented by its Proprietor 23/859-D, Mataji Store, R.G.Street, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 001. ... Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

Assistant Commissioner (ST) RG Street Circle, Coimbatore

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the record the impugned order of the Respondent dated 30.09.2023 bearing GSTIN:33BHAPA9691M1Z3/2019-20 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.S.P.Sri Harini for Mr.Adithya Reddy

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran Government Advocate (Taxes) **********

¶16

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.11168 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

An order dated 30.09.2023 is assailed on the ground that

¶20

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

¶21

By asserting that the petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice and impugned order because the said communications were only uploaded on the 'View Additional Notices and Order' tab of the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed.

¶22

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

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.11168 of 2024

¶25

Mr.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that principles of natural justice were complied with by issuing intimation dated 02.09.2022, show cause notice dated 05.01.2023 and by providing personal hearing opportunities under notices dated 13.02.2023 and 12.09.2023.

¶26

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertains to a discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. It is also clear that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is asserted that the petitioner has obtained the requisite certificates to fulfil obligations under Circular No.183. In these circumstances, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms, it is just and appropriate that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.11168 of 2024

¶29

Solely for reasons set out above, the impugned order dated

¶30

13.09.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the said period, the petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the first 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 receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶31

W.P.No.11168 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No

¶32

costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.12235 and 12236 of 2024 are closed.

¶33

26.04.2024

¶34

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

¶35

kal

¶36

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.11168 of 2024

¶38

¶39

Assistant Commissioner (ST) RG Street Circle, Coimbatore

¶40

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.11168 of 2024

¶42

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶43

kal

¶44

W.P.No.11168 of 2024 & WMP Nos.12235 & 12236 of 2024

¶45

26.04.2024

¶46

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

Tvl. Mataji Store v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Mataji Store v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

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