Allowed

Essel Enterprises v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC25 Apr 2024WP(MD)/10165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order passed without a proper reply from the assessee. The court quashed the order and remitted the case to the respondents for fresh proceedings after the petitioner files a detailed reply and deposits 10% of the disputed tax.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; case remitted to respondents for fresh orders upon filing of detailed reply and deposit of 10% of disputed tax.

Essel Enterprises Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.9185 of 2024

¶7

Essel Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, K.Lavanya, W/o.Kawagaraj, No.110A, South Raja Street, Chinnakoil, Tuticorin – 628 001.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Tuticorin II Circle, Tuticorin District.

¶11

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin II Circle, Tuticorin, Tirunelveli.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in order No.GSTN:33DVPL8372NIZM/2018-2019 dated 01.08.2023, on the file of the 1^st respondent and consequent order in Reference No.ZD330923006655F dated 01.09.2023, on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran

¶19

For respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is challenging the impugned order, dated 01.08.2023 passed by the first respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-19 in his proceedings bearing reference GSTN:33DVPL8372NIZM/2018-2019.

¶22

By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand

¶23

proposed in the show cause notice DRC01 dated 28.06.2023. Relevant portion of the impugned order is under:

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶27

3/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶30

4/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶33

The specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned order is without merits as the petitioner has correctly claimed the Input Tax Credit under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017, CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under similar circumstances, this Court has quashed the impugned order for the Assessment Year 2017-18 vide order in W.P(MD)No.8845 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that this Writ Petition is without merits and is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of

¶36

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440 and the Writ Petition, at this stage, cannot be countenanced.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner may be directed to file a Statutory Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the CGST and TNGST

¶38

5/8

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶41

Act, 2017.

¶42

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

¶43

the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶44

I have perused the impugned order with the concern of the learned counsel for the respondent. This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of the admission, since the impugned order has been passed without proper reply by the petitioner. Although the first respondent cannot be found fault with in passing the order, it is fit that the case be remitted back to the respondents. Hence, the impugned order shall be quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh orders against the impugned order dated 01.08.2023 bearing reference No GSTIN:33ADVPL8372NIZM/2018-19 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

¶45

The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be corrigendum to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in DRC01 dated 28.06.2023. It is accepted that the petitioner will file a detailed reply to the show cause notice as

¶46

6/8

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.10165 of 2024

¶49

also the impugned order, which shall stand quashed, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also deposit 10% of the disputed tax, as a condition. The respondents shall take up the case afresh and pass final orders on merit in accordance with law within a period of 60 days thereafter. The respondents are directed to hear the petitioner before passing the final order.

¶50

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd

¶52

25.04.2024

¶53

¶54