Partly allowed

Sumangali Hp Gas Agency v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC20 Aug 2024WP(MD)/17736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the impugned GST assessment order. It directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and submit objections within specified limits, thereby converting the order into a show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections within 4 weeks for orders to be passed after hearing.

Sumangali Hp Gas Agency Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15214 and 15215 of 2024

¶7

Sumangali HP Gas Agency, Represented by its Proprietor, K.Kalaiarasu

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Kumbakonam (Rural Assessment Circle), Kumbakonam.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in GSTIN No: 33AQPPK8738E1ZJ/2017-18 dated 26.12.2023, and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order issued by the respondent in GSTIN No:33AQPPK8738E1ZJ/2017-18 dated 26.12.2023, for the assessment year 2017-2018.

¶19

The impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner and it had been uploaded in the GST portal under “Additional notices and orders”. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.

¶20

The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the

¶25

recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P. (MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 .

¶26

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the introduction of GST, there were several technical glitches in the portal and the assessees were also taking time to adapt to the e-mechanism and it was only in view of the same that the petitioner was unable to respond to the above notices and the order of adjudication. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.

¶27

In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024

¶31

petitioner shall submit its objections along with supporting documents/material, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or the objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., two weeks and four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order respectively, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

20.08.2024

¶34

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶35

To:

¶36

The State Tax Officer, Kumbakonam (Rural Assessment Circle), Kumbakonam.

¶37

4/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024

¶40

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶41

Nsr

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.17736 of 2024

¶43

20.08.2024

¶44

5/5

¶45

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

Sumangali Hp Gas Agency v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumangali Hp Gas Agency 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

Gowri Shankar.J Vs The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board

Tvl. a. Sekar Vs The State Tax Officer

Tamilselvan, Vs the District Collector

M/s.Velmurugan Stores Vs The Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Kalyani W/O.(Late) Ayappan Vs State Rep. by Chief Secretary

S.Palanisamy, Vs the Inspector General of