Partly allowed

Pradeepa Enterprises v. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Madras HC13 Nov 2024WP/32923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order confirming an assessment proposal in a GST dispute where the petitioner claimed lack of proper service. The Court allowed the petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed taxes and submit objections within four weeks before the matter was restored.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax within four weeks and submit objections within four weeks. Original order restored if deposit not made or objections not filed.

Pradeepa Enterprises Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.32923 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :13.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.No.32923 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.35738 and 35739 of 2024

¶8

Pradeepa Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietrix Mr.M.Chitra 10/28, Tirumalai Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai 600 053.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (Formerly known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Thirumullaivoyal: Avadi Tiruvallur, Room No.115, 1^st Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, (Walltax Road), Vepery, Chennai 600 003. ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records the Respondent in DRC -07 Reference Number ZD3307240706880/2020-21 dated 05.07.2024 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

W.P.No.32923 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayalakshmi For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, passed by the respondent on the premise that the same was made in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶19

The petitioner is engaged in the business of rendering civil works contract service to Greater Chennai Corporation and other State Government departments and is a registered dealer under the GST Act, 2017. During the relevant period viz., 2020-21, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate taxes. However, during the scrutiny of the petitioner's return, it was found that there were certain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and Form 26AS and between GSTR-3B and GSTR9/9C. Subsequently, an intimation in ASMT10 was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.2023, followed by a notice on 14.08.2023. Further, personal hearing was offered on 30.08.2023. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor availed the opportunity of hearing. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed, confirming the proposal.

¶20

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

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P.No.32923 of 2024

¶23

The impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal. It was further submitted that the petitioner was unable to access the common portal and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, they would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies. The learned counsel for the petitioner would then place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Sree Manoj International Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer in W.P.No.10977 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024 , to submit that this court has remanded the matter back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 10% of the disputed taxes.

¶25

It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax and that they may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to

¶26

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

¶27

3/6

¶28

W.P.No.32923 of 2024

¶29

which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.

¶30

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 is set aside and

¶31

the petitioner shall deposit 10% 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 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 restored.

¶32