Disposed

Basheer Bags v. Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Madras HC22 Jan 2024WP/1227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order for 2017-18 imposing tax, interest and penalty was challenged on the ground that the petitioner's GST practitioner failed to communicate the ASMT-10 and DRC-01 notices. The court found the explanation unconvincing but quashed the order solely to provide an opportunity and remanded for reassessment.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order dated 10.08.2023 quashed; matter remanded for re-assessment within two months on reasoned decision; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Basheer Bags Vs Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.1227 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.1269 of 2024

¶7

Basheer Bags No.31/16, Appu Maistry Street, Seven Wells, Chennai 600 001. (Represented by Rashik Ali) ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Deputy State Tax Officer -2, Mannady Assessment Circle, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Chennai North Division, 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 of the respondent in impugned order issued vide Reference No. Ref No.ZD330823051631M dated 10.08.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant sufficient opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law.

¶11

1/8

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.Anu Viswaath for Mr.K.Senguttuvan For Respondent : Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, GA **********

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner assails an assessment order dated 10.08.2023 imposing tax liability of Rs.1,18,996/-, interest of Rs.1,13,786/- and penalty of Rs.20,000/- for the financial year 2017-18.

¶17

The petitioner asserts that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying bags He had engaged the services of a GST practitioner, Mr.V.Sahaya Pusparaj. Since the petitioner relied entirely on the said consultant, it is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the notice in Form ASMT-10 or the show cause notice in Form DRC-01. Therefore, the petitioner also did not participate in proceedings culminating in the assessment order. In order to substantiate the contention that the consultant had not kept the petitioner informed about these developments, an affidavit affirmed 2/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶20

by the consultant on 22.12.2023 was placed on record. At paragraph

¶21

5 of the said affidavit, the consultant has stated that the notices were not available on the window / screen for communication relating to regular returns and that the notices were in the window relating to additional notices.

¶22

For the above reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to contest the claim especially considering that the claim is confined to a difference in turnover as between Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

¶23

Mr.Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He submits that all the notices were put up on the portal of the GST Department and that the non communication thereof by the consultant to the petitioner does not justify interference with the order. He also submits that a statutory appeal was available to the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to avail of such statutory remedy.

¶24

3/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶27

The order impugned records as under with regard to the intimation and show cause notice issued to the petitioner:

¶28

"Accordingly an Intimation in Form GST ASMT10 was issued to the Tax payer on 03.05.2023 and GST DRC 01 was issued to the Tax payer on 05.7.2023. But the tax payer has not responded to the show cause notice."

¶29

As regards the hearing relating to the assessment, it is recorded as under:

¶30

"The sufficient opportunities given to the tax payer they are not attended the personal hearing and valid documents not submitted for their claim."

¶31

From the above extracts, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GSTASTM-10 or to the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01. In addition, the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The explanation of the petitioner is that the consultant did not keep the petitioner informed. The consultant, in turn, states that the notices

¶32

4/8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶35

were not available on the tab relating to regular returns and were instead accessible only through the tab relating to additional notices.

¶36

While these explanations are not wholly convincing, the fact remains that a registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference.

¶37

For reasons set out above, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. It is made clear that the petitioner will not have an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and the opportunity would be limited to participation in the proceedings before the assessing officer and making any submissions in relation thereto. Any such submission shall be made by the petitioner within a maximum period of two weeks from the

¶38

5/8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶41

date of receipt of a copy of this order. The assessing officer is directed to complete the re-assessment within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by issuing a reasoned decision.

¶42

W.P.No.1227 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.1269 of 2024 is closed.

¶43

22.01.2024

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

Deputy State Tax Officer -2, Mannady Assessment Circle,

¶47

6/8

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶50

No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Chennai North Division, Chennai 600 003.

¶51

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶52

rna

¶53

7/8

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.1227 of 2024

¶56

W.P.No.1227 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.1269 of 2024

¶57

22.01.2024

¶58

8/8

¶59

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

Basheer Bags v. Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basheer Bags v. Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

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.Asian Plastics, Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s.Virgo Polymers (India) Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

S a a Ispahani Trust Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes(Income Tax)

Mj Sankar Vs The Director Of Income Tax (Investigation)

M/s. Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd, Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals)

M/s.Ajneys Exports and Imports Vs The Assistant commissioner(Ct)