Remanded

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

Madras HC29 Apr 2024WP/11268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order confirming a GST demand where the petitioner was unable to respond due to serious illness. The matter was remanded to the tax authorities on the condition that the petitioner pays 10% of the disputed tax and files a reply, after which a fresh order with a personal hearing must be passed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.09.2023 set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration subject to remittance of 10% disputed tax and filing of reply; bank attachment vacated.

Tvl.B.L.Collection Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11268 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

Writ Petition No.11268 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.12360 & 12361 of 2024

¶7

Tvl. B.L. Collection, Represented by its Proprietor Bhanwarlal Bisani, New No.45, Old No.17, First floor, Godown Street, Chennai-600 001. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kothawalchavadi North I, Chennai North, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.313, 3^rd floor, Vepery, Chennai-600 003.

¶10

2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶11

3.The Branch Manager, City Union Bank Limited, Old No.154, New No.319, Thambu Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondents 1/6

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.11268 of 2024

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in TN-GST/ 33AADPB9486E1ZU/ 2018-2019 dated 01.09.2023 along with order and summary of order in Reference No. ZD330923000687E dated 01.09.2023 and consequential impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in RC No. 33AADPB9486E1ZU /2024 dated 05.03.2024 along with Form GST DRC13 dated 05.03.2024 issued by the 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the 1st respondent to entertain the records, documents and reply from the Petitioner and then pass order after affording a personal hearing to the Petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Hariharan

¶16

For RR1 & 2 : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Govt. Adv. (T)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

An order in original dated 01.09.2023 and proceedings consequent

¶19

thereto are challenged in this writ petition.

¶20

The petitioner is engaged in the business of buying and selling

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.11268 of 2024

¶24

cloth and apparel. By asserting that the petitioner was unable to respond to

¶25

the show cause notice or participate in proceedings due to the petitioner

¶26

being diagnosed with cancer in 2021, the present writ petition was filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax proposal pertains to the discrepancy between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. If provided an opportunity, he submits that such discrepancy would be explained by the petitioner. He points out that the petitioner could not participate because he was seriously ill during the relevant period.

¶28

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1 & 2. She points out that notice in Form ASMT 10 was issued to the petitioner in May 2023 and that this was followed by a show cause notice dated 30.06.2023 and personal hearing notice dated 01.08.2023.

¶29

On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.11268 of 2024

¶33

proposal was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing. Upon consideration of the averments in the affidavit and the submissions of learned counsel, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity by putting the petitioner on terms. Learned counsel submits, on instructions, that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

¶34

Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a 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 of the petitioner's reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, respondents 1 & 2 are 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. Since the order in original

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.11268 of 2024

¶38

was set aside, the bank attachment is raised.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

29.04.2024

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj To 1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kothawalchavadi North I, Chennai North, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.313, 3^rd floor, Vepery, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶42

5/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.11268 of 2024

¶45

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶46

¶47

Writ Petition No.11268 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.12360 & 12361 of 2024

¶48

29.04.2024

¶49

6/6

¶50

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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)

Vetri Vinayaka Metal Mart Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl.Bhavani Agencies Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)