Partly allowed

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

Madras HC9 Jul 2024WP/16689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a GST demand order for turnover mismatch between GSTR 9 and GSTR 3B. Court set aside parts of the order due to calculation errors, remanded for fresh consideration, and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed demand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside regarding specific defects; matter remanded for fresh order within 3 months upon receipt of 10% disputed tax.

Sreeram Spheroids and Graphites Private Limited Vs the… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.16689 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.16689 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18330 & 18331 of 2024

¶7

Tvl. Sreeram Spheroids and Graphites Private Limited, GSTIN:33AAPCS2522P1ZY, Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Venkatesan Deenathayalan, SF No.820/1 2, Samanaickenpalayam, Vellamadai Post, Coimbatore-641 110. ... Petitioner -vs-

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Periyanaickenpalayam Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore-641 018. ... Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the

¶11

impugned order in Form DRC-07 bearing reference number ZD331223293501Q/2017-18 dated 31.12.2023 issued by the Respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Derrick Sam

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, AGP (T)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

W.P.No.16689 of 2024

¶18

An order in original dated 29.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 relating to about 10 defects, the petitioner submitted replies dated 16.12.2023 and 28.12.2023. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the highest tax proposal, which was confirmed in the impugned order, relates to the mismatch between the taxable turnover reported in GSTR 9 and that reported in GSTR 3B. Learned counsel contends that such disparity arose on account of the inadvertent error in reflecting credit notes in the GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns of the petitioner. While filing the annual return in GSTR 9, learned counsel submits that the credit notes were duly reflected therein. Upon taking note of such credit notes, he contends that the mismatch stands duly explained. He also points out that the impugned order contains a patent error in as much as tax of Rs.1,17,31,242/- was imposed instead of treating

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.16689 of 2024

¶23

the said differential amounts as the taxable supply and imposing tax thereon at the applicable rate. He further submits that defect no.5 relates to interest for belated filing of GSTR 3B returns and that the petitioner accepts liability in such regard and would discharge the same subject to waiver, if any, pursuant to the recommendations of the GST Council. On instructions, he also submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of defect nos.9 and 10 as a condition for remand.

¶24

Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the audit report was made available to the petitioner. He also submits that principles of natural justice were complied with and that the petitioner's reply was taken into consideration.

¶25

On examining the impugned order, as regards the mismatch between the taxable turnover reported in GSTR 9 and GSTR 3B, it was recorded that the differential turnover is Rs.1,17,31,242/-. Instead of treating such differential turnover as taxable supply and computing tax thereon at the

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.16689 of 2024

¶29

applicable rate, it appears that tax of Rs.1,17,31,242/- has been apportioned between CGST and SGST. By considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, defect no.2, defect no.4, defect no.6, defect no.7 and defect no.8 were dropped. As regards defect no.1, the petitioner has placed on record the annual return whereby the mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B was reconciled by reflecting the value of credit notes. As regards defect no.5, the petitioner shall pay the interest, as agreed to, unless waiver is granted in the interregnum pursuant to the recommendations of the GST Council. As regards defect nos.9 and 10, the petitioner has agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

¶30

In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is partly set aside only in so far as defect no.1, defect no.3, defect no.9 and defect no.10 are concerned subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand as regards defect no.9 and defect no.10 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand, as stated above, was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the

¶31

4/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.16689 of 2024

¶34

petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

09.07.2024

¶37

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

¶38

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶39

¶40

5/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.16689 of 2024

¶43

¶44

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Periyanaickenpalayam Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶45

W.P.No.16689 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18330 & 18331 of 2024

¶46

09.07.2024

¶47

6/6

¶48

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Sri Gurudev Textiles Vs the Deputy Commissioner (St)

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