Disposed

Vadachettiyendal Anaikkattu Aaru Eri v. The State Tax Officer (St)

Madras HC6 Sept 2024WP/25640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST demand order for FY 2020-21 based on mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 was challenged as passed without notice or hearing since the petitioner's registration was cancelled. Court set aside the order, remanded for fresh consideration on payment of 10% of disputed tax, directed fresh hearing, and lifted the bank account attachment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned GST order set aside; matter remanded on payment of 10% disputed tax; personal hearing directed; bank account attachment lifted.

Vadachettiyendal Anaikkattu Aaru Eri Vs The State Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 06.09.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶6

W.P.No.25640 of 2024 & W.M.P.Nos.28001 & 28003 of 2024

¶7

Vadachettiyendal Anaikattu Aaru Eri, Paasanatharargal Sangam, represented by its President, A.Manivannan, 2/243, Friends Street, Vadasemapalayam, Sankarapuram TK, Kallakurichi District, TamilNadu-606 208. ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The State Tax Officer (ST), Tirukoilur Assessment circle, CT Buildings, Peirya Sevalai Road, Tirukoilur.

¶10

2. State Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi Main Road, Sankarapuram-606 401. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent herein in GSTIN:33AAFAV3354E1ZO/2020-2021 dated 31.08.2023 and quash the same.

¶12

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

¶13

1/7

¶14

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶15

For Petitioner : M/S.R.Vasumithran For Respondent 1 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (Tax)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

¶18

impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the first respondent for the financial year 2020-2021.

¶19

2. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the first respondent.

¶20

3. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for

¶21

disposal at the time of admission stage itself.

¶22

4. Alleging that there is a mismatch of tax liability between Form GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 filed by the petitioner for the financial year 2020-2021, the first respondent passed an impugned order dated 31.08.2023, demanding

¶23

the payment of differential amount along with interest and penalty in respect of

¶24

the impugned assessment period.

¶25

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

¶26

2/7

¶27

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶28

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notices in

¶29

Form DRC-01A, DRC-01 and DRC-07 raised on the petitioner in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled, the petitioner had no occasion to gone through the GST Portal. Hence, the petitioner failed to reply the said Show Cause Notices, which led to the passing of the present impugned order. He submitted that even an impugned order was uploaded in the GST portal and the physical version of such order was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 from the second respondent/Bank on account of recovery proceedings by way of freezing the petitioner's Bank account. Hence, he sought 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. It is also submitted that, i f an opportunity is provided, the petitioner would be able to substantiate its case and also he a grees to make a payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period.

¶30

6. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes)

¶31

appearing for the first respondent submitted that upon production of the

¶32

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

¶33

3/7

¶34

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶35

payment of 10% o f the disputed tax in respect of the impugned assessment period, this Court can remand the matter to the Authority concerned for passing appropriate orders.

¶36

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

¶37

Government Advocate (Taxes) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record .

¶38

Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on

¶39

either side and upon perusal of the materials, it i s evident that the impugned show cause notices were uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was unaware of the issuance of the show cause notices issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notices were 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.

¶40

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

¶41

4/7

¶42

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶43

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

¶44

impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the first respondent with the following directions:-

¶45

(i) The order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay a 10% of the disputed tax in respect of the impugned assessment period within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

¶46

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶47

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the first 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.

¶48

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

¶49

5/7

¶50

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶51

(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the Bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is lifted. The second respondent is directed to defreeze the Bank account of the petitioner immediately upon the production of a copy of this order, in case the petitioner's Bank account is attached.

¶52

10 . With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶53

is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶54

closed.

¶55

06.09.2024

¶56

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

¶57

To 1. The State Tax Officer (ST), Tirukoilur Assessment circle, CT Buildings, Peirya Sevalai Road, Tirukoilur.

¶58

2. State Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi Main Road, Sankarapuram-606 401.

¶59

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

¶60

6/7

¶61

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶62

Krishnan Ramasamy,J., jd

¶63

W.P.No.25640 of 2024

¶64

06.09.2024

¶65

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

¶66

7/7

Vadachettiyendal Anaikkattu Aaru Eri v. The State Tax Officer (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadachettiyendal Anaikkattu Aaru Eri 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

Mr. N.Periyasamy Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S P. a .R. K Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)

M/s.Raj Guru Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

M/S.Pnk Srt Travels Vs The State Transport Authority

Bny Mellon Technology Private Limited Vs The Union Of India

Shree Parshwanath Corporation Vs State Tax Officer (St)