Quashed

M/S A.H. Enterprises v. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC4 Jan 2024WP/35894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a demand notice under the Tamil Nadu GST Act issued without a personal hearing, as it violated statutory procedural mandates. The matter was remanded for a hearing and a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is quashed. The matter is remanded for reconsideration with a direction to provide a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

M/S A.H. Enterprises Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.35894 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

Writ Petition No.35894 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.35893 & 35894 of 2023

¶7

M/s.A.H. Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Shabbir Nooruddin, No.1, Hazari street (Woods Road), Chennai-600 002.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Anna Salai Assessment Circle – Central III, Chennai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 bearing GSTIN No.33APOPS5118Q1Z5/2017-2018 passed by the respondent as arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ashish

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, AGP

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.35894 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner challenges an order dated 11.10.2023 by which he was

¶20

called upon to pay a sum of Rs.2,58,597/- towards amount due and payable as per the return filed by him in GSTR 1.

¶21

The petitioner asserts that the impugned order was issued without providing a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

¶22

Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned AGP, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He points out that the amount demanded represents the difference between the returns filed in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B along with interest and penalty thereon. However, in view of the assertion that a personal hearing was not provided, he submits that the matter may be remanded for reconsideration.

¶23

In view of the statutory mandate for personal hearing and noncompliance therewith, the impugned order calls for interference. Therefore,

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.35894 of 2023

¶27

the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter issue a reasoned order within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

W.P.No.35894 of 2023 is disposed of on the above terms without

¶29

any order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶30

04.01.2024

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶32

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.35894 of 2023

¶36

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶37

¶38

Writ Petition No.35894 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.35893 & 35894 of 2023

¶39

04.01.2024

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

M/S A.H. Enterprises v. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S A.H. Enterprises v. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

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

M.R.J.Trading Vs The Director General of Foreign Trade

N.Amudha Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S.Everyday Banking and Retail Assets, Vs Office of the Asst. Commissioner (St)

Annam Rajasekher Bindhu Vs The Income Tax officer

M.Chitrakala Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Circle)

Tvl. Raghul Electronics Vs the State Tax Officer (St)