Allowed

Sri Gurudev Textiles v. the Deputy Commissioner (St)

Madras HC9 Jul 2024WP/16641/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders imposing GST late fees. Court found the petitioner unaware of proceedings due to lack of communication beyond the portal. Writ allowed; orders set aside on condition of paying 10% of the fee, remanding for fresh consideration and personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside on condition of remitting 10% of late fee; matter remanded for fresh consideration and personal hearing within three months.

Sri Gurudev Textiles Vs the Deputy Commissioner (St) — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.16641 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.16641 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18267 & 18269 of 2024

¶7

Tvl Sri Gurudev Textiles, Represented by its Proprietor, Saraswathi Bai, No.71, Shop No.31, Godown Street, Chennai – 600 001. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST),

¶10

O/o. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal, Chennai – I, 3^rd Floor, C.T.Annexe Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶11

2.The State Tax Officer, Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, Office of the State Tax Officer (ST), Chennai. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.16641 of 2024

¶16

the records of the 2^nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330323115796H dated 23.03.2023 and the records of the 1^st respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed in RC.No.1440/2024 GSTN: 33AACPB4505F1ZJ quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to given an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh Babu

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By this writ petition, the petitioner assails both the order in original and the appellate order relating to imposition of late fee. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of the order in original dated 23.03.2023 since the preceding show cause notice and the order were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode. Upon coming to know of such impugned order on or about 23.07.2023, it is stated that the petitioner filed a

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.16641 of 2024

¶25

statutory appeal. Such appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation by order dated 25.04.2024. Hence, this writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an opportunity to

¶27

contest the order on merits. He submits that the petitioner was not required by statute to file an annual return. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the late fee in the impugned order as a condition for remand.

¶28

Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that principles of natural justice were complied with by issuing show cause notice dated 13.02.2023 and by offering a personal hearing.

¶29

On perusal of the impugned order in original, it is evident that the proposal to impose late fee was confirmed because the tax

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.16641 of 2024

¶33

payer fail to reply to the show cause notice. By taking into account the assertion that non participation was on account of not being aware of proceedings, the interest of justice warrants reconsideration subject to the petitioner being putting on terms.

¶34

For reasons aforesaid, impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the late fee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the said period the petitioner is permitted to reply to the show cause notice. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and on being satisfied that 10% of the late fee 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.

¶35

W.P.No.16641 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.18267 and 18269 of 2024 are closed.

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

W.P.No.16641 of 2024

09.07.2024

rna

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

¶42

¶43

1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), O/o. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal, Chennai – I, 3^rd Floor, C.T.Annexe Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶44

2.The State Tax Officer, Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, Office of the State Tax Officer (ST), Chennai.

¶45

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶46

rna

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.16641 of 2024

¶50

W.P.No.16641 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18267 & 18269 of 2024

¶51

09.07.2024

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

Sri Gurudev Textiles v. the Deputy Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gurudev Textiles v. the Deputy Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ragavendra Iyangars Bakery Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl Rsm Traders Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

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

P Saravanan Vs The State Tax Officer

Sreeram Spheroids and Graphites Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S. Oasys Cybernetics Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer