Quashed

Prakash Fabricators And Electricals v. Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac)

Madras HC11 Jul 2024WP/16729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order imposing late fees and penalty for non-filing of GST annual returns. The petitioner claimed non-participation was due to the Chartered Accountant missing notices. The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the petitioner to file a reply within 15 days, noting that the late fee component had already been remitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to submit reply within 15 days and receive fresh order within 3 months.

Prakash Fabricators And Electricals Vs Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac) — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.18379, 18380 & 18381 of 2024

¶8

Prakash Fabricators & Electricals, Represented by its Sole Proprietor, R.Balaprakash, Gandhi Street, Budur Post, Angadu Village, Ponneri, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 067.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Ponneri Assessment Circle, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Survey No.68/17, GNT Road, Sembulivaram, Sholavaram, Thiruvallur Dist – 600 062. ... Respondents

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the 1^st respondent herein in GSTIN / 33ANFPB7718Q1ZP / 2018-19 dated 13.02.2023 and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Siri Chadana

¶19

For Respondent 1 : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, AGP (T)

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

An order dated 13.02.2023 imposing late fee and penalty for non filing of annual returns and reconciliation statement in time is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner asserts that he was unable to participate in proceedings culminating in the impugned order because GST compliances were entrusted to a Chartered Accountant and such Chartered Accountant had not noticed the show cause notice and impugned order.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the late fee

¶27

component in the impugned order is Rs.1,54,800/-. As against this, she submits that a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- was remitted by the petitioner. She seeks an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

¶28

Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the first respondent. He submits that principles of natural justice were complied with by issuing intimation dated 20.08.2022, show cause notice dated 23.11.2022 and by offering a personal hearing.

¶29

On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax payer fail to file objections to the show cause notice. By taking into account the assertion that such non participation was on account of not being aware of proceedings, the interest of justice warrants reconsideration especially by taking into account that the entire late

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶33

fee portion was remitted by the petitioner.

¶34

For reasons set out above, impugned order dated 13.02.2023

¶35

is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first 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

W.P.No.16729 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No

¶37

costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.18379, 18380 and 18381 of 2024 are

¶38

closed.

¶39

11.07.2024

¶40

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶44

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶45

¶46

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Ponneri Assessment Circle, Chennai.

¶47

2.The Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Survey No.68/17, GNT Road, Sembulivaram, Sholavaram, Thiruvallur Dist – 600 062.

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.16729 of 2024

¶51

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶52

rna

¶53

W.P.No.16729 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18379, 18380 & 18381 of 2024

¶54

11.07.2024

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

Prakash Fabricators And Electricals v. Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Fabricators And Electricals v. Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac)

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

The Official Liquidator, Vs nil

Ravi Chitra Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

m/s.Globe Industrial Spares Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Pon Pure chem P.Ltd Vs The Income Tax officer

Sarvah Infra Private Limited Vs the Deputy State Tax Officer

M/S. Grk Plastic Vs the Assistant Commisioner (St) (Fac)