Remanded

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

Madras HC12 Jul 2024WP/17044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned GST assessment order as the petitioner's reply citing sufficient Input Tax Credit was not considered. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication subject to remittance of 10% of disputed tax demand and issuance of reasonable opportunity.

M/s Freight Birdge International Vs the State Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.17044 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.17044 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18785 & 18787 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Freight Bridge International, Represented by its Partner, Mr.S.Mahendran, No.23, 2^nd Marison Street, Cement Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The State Tax Officer (ST), Alandur Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes & Regn. Buildings, (South Tower) Room No.352, III floor, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the Respondent in GSTIN: 33AABFF7007K2ZM / 2018-19 dated 16.04.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.17044 of 2024

¶14

justice.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Govt. Adv. (T)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

An order in original dated 16.04.2024 in respect of assessment period 2018-2019 is challenged. The petitioner asserts that show cause notice dated 28.01.2024 was issued by the respondent several years after the petitioner's registration certificate was cancelled. It is stated that the petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 18.03.2024. The petitioner further states that such reply was not taken into consideration while issuing the impugned order.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply and pointed out that the petitioner stated that sufficient Input Tax Credit (ITC) was available in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger and that if credits were to be given thereto, there would be no outstanding tax dues. Without prejudice, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of 2/5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.17044 of 2024

¶21

the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

¶22

Mr.V.Prashanth 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 28.01.2024 and two reminders. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner's reply dated 18.03.2024 was not received and, in any event, such reply was not uploaded on the portal as required.

¶23

On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax

¶24

proposal was confirmed because the tax payer did not remit the tax or file objections in response to the show cause notice. In view of the assertion that the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice by stating that there is sufficient ITC in the petitioner's credit ledger, the matter calls for reconsideration.

¶25

For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is

¶26

set aside on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.17044 of 2024

¶30

of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Upon receipt of such reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand 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 a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶31

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

¶32

12.07.2024

¶33

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

¶34

The State Tax Officer (ST), Alandur Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes & Regn. Buildings, (South Tower) Room No.352, III floor,

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.17044 of 2024

¶38

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶39

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶40

¶41

W.P.No.17044 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18785 & 18787 of 2024

¶42

12.07.2024

¶43

5/5

¶44

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Freight Birdge International 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 Rsd Hifi Pg, Vs The State Tax Officer(st)