Disposed

Nagaraj Sangiah v. The Superintendent Of Gst Central Excise (Grp -Iv)

Madras HC22 Apr 2024WP/6962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST Order-in-Original for multiple tax periods was challenged as ex parte since DRC 7 was uploaded late. The Court set it aside on condition the petitioner remits Rs.15 lakh towards disputed tax within two weeks, permits a reply to the show cause notice, and directs a fresh order after reasonable opportunity including personal hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.12.2022 set aside on condition of remitting Rs.15,00,000; reply to SCN permitted; fresh order with personal hearing directed within three months.

Nagaraj Sangiah Vs The Superintendent Of Gst Central… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.6962 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.7762, 7764 & 7766 of 2024

¶7

Nagaraj Sangiah Proprietor - M/s.Micrho Plast No.165, SIDCO Industrial Estate Thirumudivakkam, Chennai 600 044. ... Petition er

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise (Grp-IV), Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai Outer CGST Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Thirumudivakkam Range, Pallavaram Division No.6, Sri Devi Temple Towers, 2nd Main Road, Sembakkam, Chennai 600 073.

¶11

1/7

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶14

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax Office of the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise No.6, Sri Devi Temple Towers, 2nd Main Road, Sembakkam, Chennai 600 073.

¶15

4.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., No.40, Pammal Main Road, Pammal 600 075. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of Third Respondent in impugned Order-inOriginal No.19/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 passed for the Tax Periods July-2017 to December-2021, October-2018 to March-2019, July-2017 to January-2022 and 2020-2021 (September-2020) under Section 73(1), interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 73(9), 122(3)(d) and 125 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, quash the same as ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violation of principle of natural justice and consequently direct the Third Respondent to issue separate Show Cause Notice for each Tax Periods to enable the 2/7

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶19

petitioner to file his objections separately for each Tax Periods.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sivaraman

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.Rajinish Pathyil, Sr. SC 1 to 3

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

An Order-in-Original dated 27.12.2022 is challenged. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the order dated 27.12.2022 since the DRC 7 was uploaded on the portal only on 11.01.2024.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the disputed tax demand and pointed out that the total tax demand is a sum of Rs.1,20,90,863/-. He also submits that a sum of more than Rs.8,00,000/- was remitted on 11.04.2024 under Form GST DRC - 03.

¶26

3/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶29

On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as a condition for remand.

¶30

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertained to the belated filing of returns, the difference between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and 3B returns and the difference between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated GSTR 2A. The order discloses that the petitioner did not participate the proceedings. In these facts and circumstances, it is just and necessary that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand by putting the petitioner on terms.

¶31

For reasons set out above, impugned order dated 27.12.2022 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits an aggregate sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period. Subject to receipt of the petitioner's reply and

¶32

4/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶35

on being satisfied that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

W.P.No.6962 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No

¶37

costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.7762, 7764 and 7766 of 2024 are closed.

¶38

22.04.2024 (1/2)

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

5/7

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶44

1.The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise (Grp-IV), Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai Outer CGST Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

¶45

2.The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Thirumudivakkam Range, Pallavaram Division No.6, Sri Devi Temple Towers, 2nd Main Road, Sembakkam, Chennai 600 073.

¶46

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax Office of the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise No.6, Sri Devi Temple Towers, 2nd Main Road, Sembakkam, Chennai 600 073.

¶47

4.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., No.40, Pammal Main Road, Pammal 600 075.

¶48

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶49

6/7

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.6962 of 2024

¶52

rna

¶53

W.P.No.6962 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.7762, 7764 & 7766 of 2024

¶54

22.04.2024 (1/2)

¶55

7/7

¶56

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

Nagaraj Sangiah v. The Superintendent Of Gst Central Excise (Grp -Iv)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj Sangiah v. The Superintendent Of Gst Central Excise (Grp -Iv)

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

Shriniwas Impex Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S. A.K. Imports and Exports Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Tristar Logistics Vs State Tax Officer

Medi Sales India Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S.Mrm Construction Vs State Tax Officer ( Intelligence)

Nagaraj Sangiah Vs The Superintendent Of Gst Central Excise (Grp -Iv)