Partly allowed

M/s. Perfect Engineering Works v. The Commissioner of Cgst And Central Excise

Madras HC6 Aug 2024WP(MD)/12067/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court challenged an order levying GST on invoices due to multiple E-Way Bills for single transactions. The Court set aside the order, noting the petitioner had only verified samples. It granted liberty to submit evidence for remaining transactions within four weeks, warning of revival if missed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Liberty granted to petitioner to produce documentary evidence for remaining 70 transactions within four weeks. Order revived upon failure.

M/s. Perfect Engineering Works Vs The Commissioner of Cgst… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10733 & 10735 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Perfect Engineering Works, Represented by the Proprietor Muthuraman Sathyabama.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, No.4, Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai-II Division, No.5, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.MDU-GST-ASC-03/2024-GST dated 11.03.2024 and quash the same.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.N.Mariappan For respondents : Mr.R.Nandhakumar Senior Panel Counsel *****

¶14

1/10

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶18

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 inasmuch as the impugned order proceeds to levy GST on the very same transaction, on the basis of multiple E-Way Bills generated in respect of a single invoice/transaction.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of match box filling machines. These are huge machineries weighing close to 12 tonnes. In view of the same, these machineries are normally split into three consignments and loaded into different vehicles/lorries. Due to the fact that the E-Way module does not contemplate the E-Way Bills being generated in respect of a transaction, which is transported in more than one vehicle, the petitioner was constrained to generate three E-Way bills for a single transaction/invoice.

¶20

Based on the report of the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Sivagangai Range, Sivagangai consequent to the scrutiny of GSTR-1, GSTR-3B returns filed by the petitioner for the tax period 2018-19 and e-way bill generated

¶21

2/10

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶24

by the petitioner during the said period, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent dated 27.12.2023 alleging that,

¶25

(i) The taxable value declared in e-way bills generated by the petitioner was

¶26

more than the value declared in GSTR-3B returns and thus, there is a short payment of GST;

¶27

(ii) The taxpayer had filed GST returns after the due date during 2018-19 and thus, there is interest liability on the GST payment by cash.

¶28

As a matter of fact, the petitioner vide his reply dated 20.02.2024 furnished the sample copies of the invoices in the E-Way Bill for two

¶29

transactions. The same is extracted hereunder:

¶30

3/10

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶33

It was also made clear that the transaction referred to in the said reply dated 20.02.2024 was only sample and that they have followed the very same procedure even in respect of the remaining transactions.

¶34

In the impugned order, after recording the reply, it is stated that a verification report was called for from the Range Officer, Sivagangai, pursuant to the personal hearing held on 20.02.2024. The Range Officer, Sivagangai, vide

¶35

4/10

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶38

letter in O.C.No.19/2024 dated 04.03.2024 submitted the verification report, wherein, it was found that the CGST and SGST had been calculated three times in respect of these two invoices/transactions. Resultantly, the impugned order has excluded the above two transactions. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶39

5/10

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶42

6/10

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶45

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the period 2018-19, the petitioner had effected sales of 72 match box filling machines adopting the same modus, which was found to be in order, in respect of two sample transactions, which was referred to in the reply dated 20.02.2024. That they would have furnished the details for the remaining 70 transactions if the Adjudicating Authority had only informed them that he intends to verify all the transactions.

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have with them documentary evidence, which are identical to the transactions, which has been found by the Range Officer as well as the Adjudicating Authority to be in order, in respect of the remaining 70 transactions and that an opportunity may be granted inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed without even hearing the petitioner nor putting the petitioner on notice that the respondents intended to verify invoices of all transactions.

¶47

The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents would contend that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is an appealable order and therefore, this Writ Petition may not be entertained.

¶48

7/10

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶51

Having considered the submissions on both sides, this Court finds that there is some merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, more so, when the modus has been found to be in order in respect of the two transactions with regard to which documents were furnished along with the reply. Importantly, it was clearly indicated in the reply dated 20.02.2024 that the two transactions are only sample transactions and that the modus adopted was the same in respect of the remaining 70 transactions. If the respondent intended to verify the documents in respect of the remaining transactions, he could have put the petitioner on notice, which have enabled them to furnish the documentary evidence in support of remaining 70 transactions along with their reply.

¶52

In view there of, the impugned order is set aside and liberty is granted to petitioner to produce the documentary evidence in respect of the remaining 70 transactions to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failure to furnish the documentary evidence would result in the impugned order getting revived. If such document/representation/reply is filed within the stipulated time, namely, four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be

¶53

8/10

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶56

considered and orders passed thereon in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶57

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶58

Index : Yes / No 06.08.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd

¶59

To 1.The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, No.4, Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶60

2.The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai-II Division, No.5, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶61

9/10

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶64

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶65

apd

¶66

W.P.(MD) No.12067 of 2024

¶67

06.08.2024

¶68

10/10

¶69

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

M/s. Perfect Engineering Works v. The Commissioner of Cgst And Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Perfect Engineering Works v. The Commissioner of Cgst And Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Manimaran Vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Sajan Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Arul.R Vs The District Manager

Murugan .N Vs The Managing Director

Mohammed Abdul Khadar.S Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Sundaram Vs The Commissioner