Disposed

Srinivasa Traders v. the State Tax Officer

Madras HC1 Jul 2024WP/11976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged an order denying a hearing. The Court held that while natural justice was technically complied with, the petitioner had prima facie evidence that reconsideration was necessary. The impugned order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration upon payment of 15% of the disputed demand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration upon remitting 15% of disputed tax demand within 15 days.

Srinivasa Traders Vs the State Tax Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.13061, 13062 & 13064 of 2024

¶8

Srinivasa Traders,

¶9

Rep.by its Parner Mr. A. Srinivasan

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

1.The State Tax Officer,

¶13

(Formerly Known as Commercial Tax Officer),

¶14

Avadi Assessment Circle,

¶15

No.32, 1^st Floor, (Room No.124), Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai 600 003.

¶16

2.The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Avadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, No.32, Elephant Gate Bride Road, Chennai – 600 003.

¶17

3.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, No.3 Main Road, Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai – 71.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

¶22

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records in reference number ZD330323111863S/ 2018-19 dt. 23.03.2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as contrary to law, consequentially direct the 2^nd respondent to defreeze the bank attachments in reference no. GSTIN 33ADIFS4652D1Z7/ A2/ 2024 dt. 19.01.2024 of the petitioner-registered taxable person.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ramanan For Respondents : Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, (for R1 & R2) Government Advocate.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

An order dated 23.03.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the

¶26

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

¶27

Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner

¶28

submitted a reply dated 12.03.2023. By such reply, the petitioner enclosed purchase invoices and submitted that the petitioner had closed his business. The impugned order was issued thereafter.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

¶32

petitioner was carrying on the business of trading in products such as waist belts and thermal massagers. He also submits that there was only supplier called as “Healthy World”. He submits that the petitioner has copies of tax invoices and evidence that the supplier had filed returns and remitted taxes. He seeks an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶33

Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the first and second respondents. He submits that principles of natural justice were complied with by issuing intimation dated 08.11.2022, show cause notice dated 15.12.2022 and by also issuing reminders thereafter. By referring to the impugned order, he points out that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner failed to provide e-way bills or tax invoices. He also points out that there were no activities at the place of business.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the tax invoices

¶35

are available and that all the purchases were from a single supplier. He has placed on record such tax invoices and prima facie evidence that the supplier filed returns and remitted taxes. In these facts and circumstances,

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

¶38

reconsideration is necessary albeit by putting the petitioner on terms because the petitioner failed to submit relevant documents in the course of assessment. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 15% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

¶39

For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remits 15% of the disputed tax demand within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the said period, the petitioner is permitted to submit a reply along with supporting documents. Upon receipt thereof and upon satisfied that 15% of the disputed tax demand was received, the first respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. In view of the assessment order being set aside, the bank attachment is raised.

¶40

7.The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

are also closed.

01.07.2024

(2/2)

Index : No Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Case Citation:No

¶47

klt

¶48

¶49

1.The State Tax Officer, (Formerly Known as Commercial Tax Officer), Avadi Assessment Circle, No.32, 1^st Floor, (Room No.124), Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai 600 003.

¶50

2.The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Avadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, No.32, Elephant Gate Bride Road, Chennai – 600 003.

¶51

3.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, No.3 Main Road, Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai – 71.

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.11976 of 2024

¶54

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶55

klt

¶56

W.P.No.11976 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.13061, 13062 & 13064 of 2024

¶57

01.07.2024 (2/2)

¶58

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

Srinivasa Traders v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa Traders v. the State 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

Saisivajyoti Vs Income Tax Officer

Dynamed Equipments Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St) Intelligence -I

Dynamed Equipments Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St) Intelligence -I

Srinivasa Traders Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S.S.S.Cashews, Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-1

Tvl. a S P and Co. Vs the State Tax Officer