Remanded

Tvl Rsm Traders v. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

Madras HC8 Jul 2024WP/16566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a GST order passed without hearing the petitioner, finding a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was unaware of proceedings communicated only via the GST portal. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, directing authorities to provide a reasonable opportunity and issue a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned GST order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration; petitioner permitted to submit reply within 15 days and fresh order within three months.

Tvl Rsm Traders Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-2 — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.16566 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.16566 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18174 to 18176 of 2024

¶7

Tvl. RSM Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Shridhar, No.51, Badrian Street, Parrys, Chennai - 600 001. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Tax Office Complex, Room No.327, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

¶10

2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST- Appeal, Chennai – II, PAPJM Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶11

3.The Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank - GN Street Branch, No.185, G N Street, I Floor, Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.16566 of 2024

¶16

to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of the impugned order passed in GSTIN 33BPWPS8766P1ZE /2017-18 dated 07.12.2023 on the file of

¶17

the First Respondent along with the consequential DRC-07 Order under Section 73, Ref No. ZD331223039735J dated 07.12.2023 on the file of the First Respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and against the law.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Poojesh J.

¶19

For R1 & R2 : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Govt. Adv. (T) ORDER

¶20

An order in original dated 07.12.2023 is challenged on the ground

¶21

that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner asserts that the show cause notice and other communications were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. Since GST compliances had been entrusted to an accountant and such accountant did not keep the petitioner informed about proceedings, the petitioner asserts that he could not participate in proceedings culminating in the impugned order.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.16566 of 2024

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax proposal relates to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. He further submits that a sum of Rs.30,693/was recovered from the petitioner's account in the Kotak Mahindra Bank, after the order in original was issued. He further submits that this amount represents about 20% of the disputed tax demand. Thereafter, he submits that the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority by remitting an additional 10%. He seeks another opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶26

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1 & 2. She submits that principles of natural justice were complied with by issuing intimation dated 15.05.2023, show cause notice dated 26.09.2023 and by a personal hearing notice dated 24.11.2023.

¶27

On examining the impugned order, it is clear that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.16566 of 2024

¶31

and the auto-populated GSTR 2A. Such tax proposal was confirmed without hearing the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice. By taking into account the assertion that such non participation was on account of being unaware of proceedings, reconsideration is necessary. In this regard, it should be recognised that a sum of Rs.30,693/-, which represents about 20% of the disputed tax demand, was recovered from the petitioner's bank account. Subsequently, the petitioner remitted a further 10% while presenting a statutory appeal. To that extent, the revenue interest stands secured.

¶32

In the facts and circumstances outlined above, the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the 1^st respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply. In view of the assessment order being set aside, the

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.16566 of 2024

¶36

bank attachment is raised.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08.07.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj To 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Tax Office Complex, Room No.327, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST- Appeal, Chennai – II, PAPJM Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶38

5/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.16566 of 2024

¶41

¶42

W.P.No.16566 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18174 to 18176 of 2024

¶43

08.07.2024

¶44

6/6

¶45

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

Tvl Rsm Traders v. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl Rsm Traders v. The 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

Susheel Jewellery Mart Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

M/s. The Zero Brand Zones Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs

Shreeji Enterprise Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S.S.M.Builders, Vs the Joint Commissionr

M/S.S.M.Builders, Vs the Joint Commissioner