Disposed

New Dolphin Machining Solutions v. The Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac)

Madras HC15 Apr 2024WP/7449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order based on GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A discrepancy was set aside for breach of natural justice as the petitioner had no opportunity to be heard; matter remanded with liberty to reply and personal hearing after remittance of 10% of disputed tax.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to reply within 15 days and entitlement to personal hearing; fresh order directed within two months.

New Dolphin Machining Solutions Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.8331 & 8332 of 2024

¶8

New Dolphin Machining Solutions, Rep.by its Managing Partner Mr. V. S. Sridhar, No.8 A, NA, Brindavan Colony, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Ambattur, Chennai - 600058.

¶9

... Petitioner Versus

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Ambattur Industrial Estate Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept. Building, Room No.324, 3^rd Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Respondent in Reference Number ZD330523009079M DRC-07 dt 03.05.2023 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms. V. Vijayalakshmi For Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate (Tax)

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

An order dated 03.05.2023 is challenged on the ground of breach

¶18

of principles of natural justice.

¶19

The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order on account of the fact that GST compliances had been entrusted to a consultant, who had not informed the petitioner of such proceedings.

¶20

By pointing out that the tax demand pertains to discrepancy

¶21

between the petitioner's GSTR-3B and auto-populated GSTR-2A, it is submitted that the petitioner would be in a position to establish that the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was proper if an opportunity is provided.

¶22

The petitioner has also placed on record additional documents to

¶23

establish that the purchases made by the petitioner were genuine.

¶24

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶26

On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

10% of the disputed tax demand was remitted on 05.03.2024.

¶28

Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. She submits that the impugned order was preceded by show cause notice dated 03.03.2023 and that the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand.

¶29

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order relates to the discrepancy between the GSTR 3B and GSTR – 2A returns. The petitioner has placed on record several documents to establish that the petitioner was entitled to avail of ITC. Since the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued, principles of natural justice warrant interference so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner. It should be noticed that the petitioner remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand, before filing this writ petition.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶32

8.Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 is set aside and

¶33

the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is also permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶34

W.P.No.7449 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms without

¶35

any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶36

15.04.2024

¶37

Index : No Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Case Citation: No

¶38

klt

¶39

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶41

¶42

¶43

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.7449 of 2024

¶45

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶46

klt

¶47

W.P.No.7449 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.8331 & 8332 of 2024

¶48

15.04.2024

¶49

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

New Dolphin Machining Solutions v. The Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Dolphin Machining Solutions v. The Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac)

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/s Oasys Cybernetics Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer

M/S.Apl Apollo Tubes Limited (Unit Ii) Vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence )

M/S.Alammu Construction Vs the Assistnat Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

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

M/s Mahaveer Enterprises Vs The Superintendent Of Gst And Central Excise

Tmf Business Services Limited Vs the Union of India