Partly allowed

Tvl Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill v. the state Tax Officer (Int)

Madras HC6 Nov 2024WP/31622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a GST assessment order based on alleged GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch. The court set aside the order, directed a 25% tax deposit, and remanded the matter for consideration of objections after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections for fresh consideration with hearing.

Tvl Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill Vs the state Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.31622 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.No.31622 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.34374, 34375 and 34376 of 2024

¶7

Tvl. Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill, Rep. by its Proprietor G.Krishnamoorthy, Tirukoilur Assessment Circle, No.47/1B, Kallakurichi Main Road, Kezha Thazhanur, Tirukoilur, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu 605 757.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State Tax Officer (INT), Inspection – IV, Cuddalore.

¶11

2.The State Tax Officer, Tirukoilur.

¶12

3.Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, No.47/1B, Kallakurichi Main Road, Kelathalanur, Tirukoilur.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of first Respondent's order

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.No.31622 of 2024

¶18

dated 05.12.2023 in GSTN:33AOGPK7995C1ZR /2022-2023 and second Respondent's consequential Form GST DRC-13 dated 17.05.2024 and to quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondents : Mr.T.N.C Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 05.12.2023 relating to the assessment year 2022-2023.

¶22

The petitioner is engaged in the business of Rice Trading and is a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the relevant period viz., 2022-2023, the petitioner had filed its return and paid appropriate taxes. The petitioner's place of business was visited by the Vellore Intelligence Wing Officers on 19.04.2023. During the course of inspection, it was found that there was a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Subsequently, notices were issued in DRC-01 through online on 04.09.2023, followed by reminders on 27.09.2023 and 20.10.2023. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.31622 of 2024

¶26

paid the tax amount. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶27

The impugned order is challenged on the premise that the notices and orders were uploaded under the “view additional notices and orders” tab on the GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.

¶28

The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-

¶29

2A.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 . It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final

¶31

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.31622 of 2024

¶33

opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not have any serious objection.

¶34

In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) 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., two weeks and four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored.

¶35