Disposed

Shriniwas Impex v. the State Tax Officer

Madras HC18 Apr 2024WP/8672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST penalty order challenged on natural justice grounds after inspection and fake-invoice allegations involving group entities. Court found opportunities were given but substantial penalties were imposed without considering documents; set aside the order on condition of remitting 5% of penalty, permitting fresh reply, hearing, and fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned penalty order set aside on remand of 5% of penalty within three weeks; fresh reply, hearing and fresh order directed within two months.

Shriniwas Impex Vs the State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.8672of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9667 & 9669 of 2024

¶7

Tvl. Shriniwas Impex, (Represented by its Partner Vinod Babulal Mandot) SF No.616/2B2, Pollachi Main Road, Coimbatore - 641 021. ... Petitioner -vs-

¶8

The State Tax Officer, Podanur Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.Balasundaram Chettiar Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned order bearing GSTIN 33ABCFS5773R1ZG/2018-19 dated 22.01.2024 passed by the respondent.

¶10

1/8

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Natarajan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, GA (T)

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In this writ petition, the impugned order dated dated 22.01.2024 with regard to the imposition of penalty is challenged. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of metal scraps. A surprise inspection was conducted at the petitioner's registered place of business and other branches in May 2022 by the State Tax Department. Pursuant thereto, an intimation was issued to the petitioner in November 2023. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 08.11.2023. The petitioner replied to such show cause notice seeking an additional 30 days on the ground that notices were received in respect of five financial years and that the petitioner is in the process of gathering the required data to submit a detailed reply. The impugned order was issued in the above facts and circumstances on 22.01.2024.

¶18

2/8

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is part of a group of entities and that such group includes Sonali Extrusion Private Limited and Sonali Metal Industries LLP. Since the licence for procurement of metal scrap was issued to Sonali Extrusion Private Limited, he submits that the petitioner had to necessarily purchase goods from Sonali Extrusion Private Limited. By referring to the orders impugned herein, learned counsel submitted that the respondent noticed that certain suppliers (named in the impugned orders) had generated fake invoices and, on that basis, concluded that the petitioner acted as an intermediary in bill trading transactions. Merely because there were transactions between the petitioner and Sonali Extrusion Private Limited or between the petitioner and Sonali Metal Industries LLP, he contended that it could not have been concluded that the petitioner was engaged in bill trading. He further submits that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to place all relevant documents on record to

¶22

3/8

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶25

establish that the transactions were genuine. Instead of granting time up to 10.02.2024, as requested for by letter dated 11.01.2024, he

¶26

submits that the impugned order was issued on 22.01.2024.

¶27

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the sequence of dates and events, Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran contends that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to place all relevant document on record and establish that the transactions were genuine. He further submits that a person who fails to avail of opportunities provided by the respondent cannot complain about breach of principles of natural justice. In support of this contention, he relied on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in C.Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and another, order dated 21.09.2023 in W.P(C) No.30276 of 2023 .

¶28

On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶29

4/8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶32

that the petitioner is ready and willing to remit 5% of the amount imposed as penalty under each impugned order as a condition for remand.

¶33

The documents on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was provided several opportunities to contest the claim for penalty. Upon receipt of the intimation and show cause notice, the petitioner could and should have placed on record documents indicating movement of goods between the group entities. Such documents could have been in the form of e-way bills, lorry receipts, weighment slips and the like. Instead of submitting such documents, the petitioner merely requested for further time to provide the documents by citing the fact that notices pertaining to five assessment periods were issued. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be absolved of responsibility for the current state of affairs. It should, however, be noticed that substantial amounts were imposed as penalty without taking into account documents that the petitioner

¶34

5/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶37

claims is in his possession. The reply dated 11.01.2024 of the petitioner seeking an additional thirty days' time is also a material consideration. When these facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively, a case is made out to provide the petitioner another opportunity, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.

¶38

Therefore, the order impugned herein is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 5% of the penalty imposed under order as a condition for remand. Such amount shall be remitted within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a detailed reply to the show cause notices within the aforesaid period by enclosing all relevant documents. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and upon being satisfied that 5% of the penalty in respect of assessment period was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh order within two months from the date of

¶39

6/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶42

receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶43

W.P.No.8672 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.9667 and 9669 of 2024 are closed.

¶44

18.04.2024

¶45

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No To The State Tax Officer, Podanur Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.Balasundaram Chettiar Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶46

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶47

rna

¶48

7/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.8672 of 2024

¶51

W.P.No.8672of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9667 & 9669 of 2024

¶52

18.04.2024

¶53

8/8

¶54

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

Shriniwas Impex v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriniwas Impex v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Stanely Hitech Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

Tvl Stanely Hitech Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

S Saravanan 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

Tvl.Vishal Agencies, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)