Disposed

Jayam Gas Agency Rep By Proprietor Mr Ramasamy Senthilkumar v. the Deputy State Tax OFFICER-1

Madras HC2 Sept 2024WP/21547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order demanding differential tax for 2017-18 was challenged because the show cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal and no personal hearing was afforded. The Court set aside the order and recovery notice, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.12.2023 and recovery notice dated 04.04.2024 set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with directions to hear petitioner.

Jayam Gas Agency Rep By Proprietor Mr Ramasamy… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.21547 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.09.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶6

W.P.No.21547 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.23513 of 2024

¶7

Jayam Gas Agency, Rep., by Proprietor, Mr. Ramasamy Senthilkumar, No.354, Abbas Garden Road, Subbanna Gounderthottam Lunanagar Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Velandipalayam Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, New Annexure Building, 1 st Floor, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore-18. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Order bearing Reference Number ZD331223148627G dated 20.12.2023 and the consequential Impugned Recovery Notice bearing Reference Number 33DRAPS8307A1Z4/A1 dated 04.04.2024 passed by Deputy State Tax Officer-1 the respondent herein, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refund the tax recovered from the petitioner arising out of the impugned Order.

¶12

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

¶13

1/5

¶14

W.P.No.21547 of 2024

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Shiva Kumar

¶16

For Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned

¶19

order dated 20.12.2023 and the consequential impugned recovery notice dated 04.04.2024 passed by the respondent.

¶20

2. Alleging that the petitioner had wrongly availed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2017-2018, the respondent passed an impugned order dated 20.12.2023, demanding the payment of differential amount along with interest and penalty in respect of the impugned assessment period.

¶21

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 26.09.2023 raised on the petitioner in the GST portal under the head “Other Notices” tab, as the petitioner was unaware of the same, he failed to respond the said show cause notice, which led to the passing of the present impugned order. Further, he submitted that even an impugned order was uploaded in

¶22

the GST portal and the physical version of such order was not served on the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

2/5

¶25

W.P.No.21547 of 2024

¶26

It is also submitted that the major amount of the tax demand has also been recovered

¶27

by the respondent from the Electronic Cash Ledger of the petitioner. Hence, he sought

¶28

for appropriate orders from this Court for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to present the case by way of filing a suitable reply and participate in the proceedings.

¶29

4 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record .

¶30

Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

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

¶32

3/5

¶33

W.P.No.21547 of 2024

¶34

For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the

¶35

impugned order dated 20.12.2023 along with consequential impugned notice dated

¶36

04.04.2024 passed by the respondent with the following directions:-

¶37

(i) The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice by fixing the date for personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

7 . With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no

¶41

order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

02.09.2024

¶43

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No jd

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

W.P.No.21547 of 2024

¶47

Krishnan Ramasamy,J., jd

¶48

To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Velandipalayam Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, New Annexure Building, 1 st Floor, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore-18.

¶49

W.P.No.21547 of 2024

¶50

02.09.2024

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

Jayam Gas Agency Rep By Proprietor Mr Ramasamy Senthilkumar v. the Deputy State Tax OFFICER-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayam Gas Agency Rep By Proprietor Mr Ramasamy Senthilkumar v. the Deputy State Tax OFFICER-1

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

Mr.S.Alagappan, S/o. Mr.N.Sivanadian, Vs Sol India Pvt.Ltd, Represented by its Director

Tvl.R.K.Tiles and Hardwares, Vs Commissioner of State Tax

M/s Reha Environ Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director, Vs Government of Puducherry, Rep.by its Secretary

T Ramkumar Vs The President

Aravind Ceramics Private Limited Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Tvl H.K. Agro Foods Vs The State Tax Officer