Allowed

M/s Rsd Hifi Pg, v. The State Tax Officer(st)

Madras HC12 Jul 2024WP/17022/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a tax order where the lower authority failed to discuss the grounds relied upon in the petitioner's replies. The Court quashed the order due to this procedural defect and remanded the matter with directions for reconsideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order is quashed, matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity for personal hearing and submission of additional reply.

M/s Rsd Hifi Pg, Vs The State Tax Officer(st) — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.17022 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.17022 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18764 & 18767 of 2024

¶7

M/s.RSD HIFI PG, Rep. By its Proprietor, #2/6, Kalaignar Street, Shanthi Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The State Tax Officer (ST), Group III, Chengalpattu Intelligence Division, No.870/2A, 1^st Floor, Kancheepuram High Road, Thimmavanam, Chengalpattu 603 101.

¶10

2.The State Tax Officer, Group III, Intelligence-I, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), No.1 PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for impugned order in Ref.No. ZD3303241935965 dated 28.03.2024 for Financial Year 2018-

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.17022 of 2024

¶16

19 and uploaded along with the summary of order in DRC 07 under Section 73(3) of the CGST / TNGST Act, 2017 from the files of the first respondent herein, quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, AGP (T)

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

An order in original dated 28.03.2024 is challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner's replies were not taken into consideration. Upon receipt of intimation dated 27.02.2023 indicating tax liability of Rs.5,24,912/-, the petitioner replied on 09.03.2023 and claimed exemption under Notification No.12/2017 – Central (Rate), as amended by Notification No.21/2017 – Central (Rate). Thereafter, show cause notice dated 16.12.2023 was issued. By reply dated 29.01.2024, the petitioner reiterated that the notification referred to earlier exempted hostel services from GST.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.17022 of 2024

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the above replies and contended that such reply was noticed in the impugned order, but there was no discussion relating thereto.

¶26

Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that the matter may be remanded so as to enable consideration of the petitioner's reply.

¶27

The petitioner has placed the replies to the intimation and show cause notice, respectively, on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the replies were referred to, but no findings were recorded in respect thereof. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶28

Therefore, impugned order dated 28.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.17022 of 2024

¶32

permitted to submit an additional reply within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the first respondent is directed to issue a fresh order within four months from the date of receipt of such additional reply.

¶33

W.P.No.17022 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms.

¶34

Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.18764 and 18767 of 2024 are closed.

¶35

12.07.2024 (3/4)

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.17022 of 2024

¶40

¶41

1.The State Tax Officer (ST), Group III, Chengalpattu Intelligence Division, No.870/2A, 1^st Floor, Kancheepuram High Road, Thimmavanam, Chengalpattu 603 101.

¶42

2.The State Tax Officer, Group III, Intelligence-I, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), No.1 PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006.

¶43

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶44

rna

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.17022 of 2024

¶48

W.P.No.17022 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18764 & 18767 of 2024

¶49

12.07.2024 (3/4)

¶50

6/6

¶51

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

M/s Rsd Hifi Pg, v. The State Tax Officer(st)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Rsd Hifi Pg, v. The State Tax Officer(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

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)

The Principal commissioner of Income tax Vs M/s.Dun and Bradstreet Technologies and

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/s. Karlin Pharmaceuticals and Exports Pvt. Ltd.

M/s Freight Birdge International Vs the State Tax Officer (St)