Disposed

M/S.Prosign Communications, v. the Deputy State Tax Officer III

Madras HC16 Apr 2024WP/9610/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged GST assessment orders for 2017-18 and 2018-19 and a recovery notice for breach of natural justice. The court found no personal hearing was offered after the reply to the show cause notice despite Section 75(4), set aside the orders and recovery notice, and remanded for fresh orders after a personal hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S.Prosign Communications, Vs the Deputy State Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶7

and W.M.Ps.10640,10641,10651,10653,10652,10654,10661&10663 of 2024

¶8

In all W.P's :

¶9

M/s. Prosign Communications, (Rep.by its Sole Proprietor, Molly Jaison, 2^nd Floor, 2F, 53-A, Logaiah Colony, 5^th Cross Street, Saligramam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 093.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

The Deputy State Tax Officer III, Saligramam Assessment Circle, No.15 & 16, First Floor, 100 Feet Road, Malligai Avenue, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Prayer in W.P.No.9610 of 2024 : 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 the impugned notice for recovery in GSTIN 33AEDPM3111R1ZI dated 01.02.2024 and quash the same as it is not in conformity with the principles laid by the decisions of the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Steel Trading Vs.

¶15

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.4122 of 2022 dated 29.01.2024 and JAK Communications Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. WP No.35453 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023 and Sree Amman Metal Works Vs. State Tax Officer (2023) 154 taxmann.com 496 (Madras) .

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No.9619 of 2024 : 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 the impugned order Reference No. GSTIN 33AEDPM3111R1Z1 / 2017-18 dated 11.12.2023 and quash the same as it is not in conformity with the principles laid by the decisions of the Honble Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Steel Trading Vs. The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.4122 of 2022 dated 29.01.2024 and JAK Communications Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. WP No.35453 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023 and Sree Amman Metal Works Vs. State Tax Officer (2023) 154 taxmann.com 496 (Madras) .

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No.9620 of 2024 : 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 the impugned order Reference No. GSTIN. 33AEDPM3111R1Z1/2017-18 dated 16.12.2023 and quash the same as it is not in conformity with the principles laid by the decisions of the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Steel Trading Vs. The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.4122 of 2022 dated 29.01.2024 and JAK Communications Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. WP No.35453 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023 and Sree Amman Metal

¶20

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶22

Works Vs. State Tax Officer (2023) 154 taxmann.com 496 (Madras) .

¶23

Prayer in W.P.No.9627 of 2024 : 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 the impugned order Reference GSTIN No. 33AEDEM3111R1ZI /2018-19 dated 24.01.2024 and quash the same as it is not in conformity with the principles laid by the decisions of the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Steel Trading Vs. The Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.4122 of 2022 dated 29.01.2024 and JAK Communications Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. WP No.35453 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023 and Sree Amman Metal Works Vs. State Tax Officer (2023) 154 taxmann.com 496 (Madras) .

¶24

In all W.P's :

¶25

For Petitioner : M/s. Radhika Chandra For Respondent : Mr. C. Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader.

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

In these writ petitions, assessment orders pertaining to the assessment periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 are challenged on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.

¶28

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶30

Upon receipt of show cause notice in October 2023, the petitioner

¶31

replied on 18.01.2024. The impugned orders were issued thereafter.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner assails these orders on the ground that there was contravention of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of applicable GST enactments by failing to provide a personal hearing after such reply was issued by the petitioner.

¶33

Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶34

accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He pointed out that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to an audit and that principles of natural justice were complied with.

¶35

On perusal of the documents on record, it is clear that the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. After receipt of such reply, the respondent did not offer a personal hearing to the petitioner. Subsection (4) of Section 75 of applicable GST enactments prescribes that a personal hearing should be offered either if requested for or if an order adverse to the tax payer is proposed to be issued. Since such statutory

¶36

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶38

prescription was contravened in this case, the impugned orders call for interference.

¶39

Therefore, the orders impugned herein are set aside and the matters are remanded for reconsideration by the respondent. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

In view of the fact that the assessment orders preceding the

¶41

impugned recovery notice were set aside, the recovery notice does not survive and the same is set aside. It should be noticed that this recovery notice pertains not only to orders impugned herein but also to the orders which form the subject of pending appellate proceedings. Since predeposit was made in accordance with Section 107 of applicable GST enactments, stay of recovery is in force in relation to the appellate proceedings also.

¶42

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶44

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024 are disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶45

16.04.2024 (1/2)

¶46

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

¶47

klt

¶48

¶49

The Deputy State Tax Officer III, Saligramam Assessment Circle, No.15 & 16, First Floor, 100 Feet Road, Malligai Avenue, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶50

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶52

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶53

klt

¶54

W.P.Nos.9610, 9619, 9620 & 9627 of 2024

¶55

and

¶56

W.M.P.Nos.10651,10653, 10652, 10654, 10661 & 10663 of 2024

¶57

16.04.2024 (1/2)

¶58

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S.Prosign Communications, v. the Deputy State Tax Officer III

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S.Prosign Communications, v. the Deputy State Tax Officer III

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

S.Arun Kumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

Resulticks Digitals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner

M/S.Prosign Communications, Vs the State Tax Officer