Disposed

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

Madras HC1 Jul 2024WP/12585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an assessment order on grounds of natural justice and jurisdiction. Court set aside the order, allowing petitioner to submit a reply and remit a sum, directing fresh consideration after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside on condition of remitting Rs.1,00,000/- within three weeks, after which petitioner to submit reply and get fresh hearing and order within three months.

M/S.S.S.Cashews, Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-1 — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.12585 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.13747 & 13748 of 2024

¶7

M/s.S.S.Cashews, Rep: by its Proprietor, 374, Chinnapurangani Street, Kadampuliyur Post, Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – 607 103. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) – I, Panruti Rural Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Panruti – 607 106. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the assessment proceedings for the year 2017-18 in GSTIN: 33CFBPS9618Q1ZO/2017-18 dated 05.12.2023 and to quash

¶11

1/7

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶14

this impugned order passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders as per Circular No.183/15/ 27.12.2022 GST dated 27.12.2022.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, GA (T)

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

An assessment order dated 05.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner states that he is a manufacturer of cashew nut kernels. Since he is not well versed with computer operations, it is stated that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings until after the impugned assessment order was issued.

¶20

2/7

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy

¶24

State Tax Officer is not authorized to exercise jurisdiction in matters where the tax demand exceeds Rs.75,000/-. He also submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Circular No.183 and that he would be in a position to establish that only eligible Input Tax Credit was claimed. His last contention is that the show cause notice did not refer to a demand for interest, whereas the impugned order imposes interest liability.

¶25

Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent. He submits that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner by registered post. He placed on record a copy of such show cause notice and the acknowledgment card. Therefore, he contends that principles of natural justice were complied with and that no case is made out for interference.

¶26

3/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶29

On perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that the petitioner was informed that interest at 18% per annum would be levied unless payment is made. As regards the jurisdictional objection, learned Government Advocate contends that there is no monetary limit under applicable GST statutes and that the notifications relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are confined to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

¶30

On examining the impugned assessment order, it is clear that the tax proposal, which related to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A, was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. Although the respondent has placed on record proof of service of the show cause notice on the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner was not heard before the tax proposal was confirmed. The petitioner asserts that he is in a position to establish

¶31

4/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶34

that only eligible Input Tax Credit was claimed. Upon putting the petitioner on terms, re-consideration is warranted in the interest of justice. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand.

¶35

For reasons aforesaid, impugned order dated 05.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards the disputed tax demand. Such remittance shall be made within three 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 thereof and on being satisfied that a sum of Rs.1,00,00/- 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 receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶36

5/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶39

W.P.No.12585 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.13747 and 13748 of 2024 are closed.

¶40

01.07.2024

¶41

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No To Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) – I, Panruti Rural Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Panruti – 607 106.

¶42

6/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.12585 of 2024

¶45

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶46

rna

¶47

W.P.No.12585 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.13747 & 13748 of 2024

¶48

01.07.2024

¶49

7/7

¶50

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Srinivasa Traders Vs the State Tax Officer

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