The High Court set aside a GST assessment order due to a mismatch in ITC and RCM liability records, allowing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and seek a fresh hearing.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax to get fresh hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.27914 and 27915 of 2024
Salem Steel Trading Company, Represented by its proprietor, A.Hithayathullaha, 17/14F, Suramangalam Main Road, Three Roads, Salem 636 006. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Tax Officer (ST), Arisipalayam Circle, Station: Room No.418/Fourth Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Pitchards Road, Salem 600 008.
... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for recordson the files of the respondent herein in GSTIN/33ABHPH6958G1ZJ/2017-18 dated 26.12.2023.
1/6
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajkumar For Respondents : Ms.Amrita Dinakaran Government Advocate
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of
assessment dated 26.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18.
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the returns and discharged appropriate taxes during the relevant period. The returns filed by the petitioner was scrutinised and it was found that the petitioner has reported an inward supply liable for reverse payment and the same was claimed in GSTR3B and adjusted against the output dues. On verification it was found by the RCM that it was not paid. Consequently, an intimation in DRC01A was issued to which the petitioner filed its reply on 07.09.2023 wherein it was submitted that there was a manual mistake of entry in the reverse charge liability column instead of Input tax credit column. This was followed by a notice in DRC01 which was also responded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide reply dated 12.12.2023. However, the same was rejected and the impugned order
2/6
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
came to be passed on the premise that the reply did not include the invoices in support of the claim and the subsequent payment made by the supplier is not furnished along with their reply.
vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024, to submit that this court has remanded the matter back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 25% of the disputed taxes.
3/6
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived.
4/6
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
05.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes spp
To
The State Tax Officer (ST), Arisipalayam Circle, Station: Room No.418/Fourth Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Pitchards Road, Salem 600 008.
5/6
W.P.No.25567 of 2024
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
spp
W.P.No.25567 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.27914 and 27915 of 2024
05.11.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further opportunity to explain discrepancies between ITC claimed and Reverse charge liability declared?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseRelied on¶29
W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Salem Steel Trading Company
The State Tax Officer (ST)
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
