Allowed

Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC16 Apr 2024WP(MD)/1471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged GST assessment orders for 2020-21 to 2022-23 confirming demands without considering its reply to the DRC-01A show cause notice. The Court held the orders non-speaking, quashed them and remanded for fresh orders on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned section 73 orders dated 29.09.2023 and DRC-07 summaries quashed; matter remitted for fresh orders on merits within six weeks; no costs; connected WMPs closed.

Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.1471,1472 and 1473 of 2024 & W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1510,1511,1515,1516,1513 and 1514 of 2024

¶7

NTC Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt Ltd rep by its Director Mr.Subburayan Muthusamy 491, Kangeyampalayam, Kuppam Post Arvakuruchi Taluk, Karur West Karur-639111 ... Petitioner in all the cases

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Commercial Tax Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence Erode Division Commercial Taxes Annexe Building No.161,Meenashi Sundaranar Salai Erode-638001 Tamil Nadu

¶10

2.Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC Erode Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence Erode Division Commercial Taxes Annexe Building No.161, Meenakshi Sundaranar Salai Erode-638001 Tamil Nadu ... Respondents in all cases

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 6_

¶12

W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶13

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶14

India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order under section 73 of the TNGST Acts dated 29.09.2023 and the consequent summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.09.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondent independently having Ref.No. ZD330923244394B for the year 2020-21, ZD330923244003S for the year 2021-22, ZD330923244135J for the year 2022-2023,.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.V.Balaji in all cases

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.J.K.JAyaseelan, Govt.Advocate in all cases

¶17

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶18

Writ Petitions are filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order under section 73 of the TNGST Acts dated 29.09.2023 and the consequent summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.09.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondent independently having Ref.No.ZD330923244394B for the year 2020-21, ZD330923244003S for the year 2021-22, ZD330923244135J for the year 2022-2023.

¶19

By these common order all the three writ petitions have been disposed of.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 6_

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶22

In these Writ petitions the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment orders dated 29.09.2023 in Form GST DRC-07. For the above mentioned assessment orders petitioner was issued with notices for the respective assessment years in Form DRC-018 to which the petitioner has replied. It is a comprehensive reply. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the notices issued in DRC-01 on 04.08.2023 for the respective assessment years were not received by the petitioner and directly posted in the portal which the petitioner therefore failed to write and then failed to respond.

¶23

It is further submitted that although the reply filed by the petitioner to notice in DRC-01A dated 24.05.2023 was replied on 05.06.2023 it has not been considered by the respondent. Reading of the impugned order indicates that there is no discussion on this aspect. It merely records that despite opportunity being given to the petitioner of being heard petitioner, the petitioner has not offered any reply to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. Thus, the demand was confirmed U/s. 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 6_

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶26

Considering the same and having perused the impugned order

¶27

and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, I am of the view that the impugned orders have to be quashed and case be remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits as admittedly the impugned orders are non speaking and do not allude to the reply filed by the petitioner to notice issued in DRC-01A on 24.05.2023.

¶28

It is expected that respondents pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall file a detailed reply by treating the impugned order which stands quashed as corrigendum to the show cause notice which preceded the respective impugned orders. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶29

16.04.2024.

¶30

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order kpr

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 6_

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶33

Copy To:

¶34

1.Commercial Tax Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence Erode Division Commercial Taxes Annexe Building No.161,Meenashi Sundaranar Salai Erode-638001 Tamil Nadu

¶35

2.Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC Erode Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence Erode Division Commercial Taxes Annexe Building No.161, Meenakshi Sundaranar Salai Erode-638001 Tamil Nadu

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 6_

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶38

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶39

kpr

¶40

W.P.(MD)Nos.1471 to 1473 of 2024

¶41

16.04.2024

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 6_

Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

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

The Chandrasekarapuram Co-op Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Tvl Rajaiah Contractor Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II

Tvl.Reshee Super Stores Vs The Union of India

Theiventhiran Vs The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)

Ramani Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Muthusamy. P Vs The Commissioner