Partly allowed

Tvl P Karuppaiah v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC13 Aug 2024WP(MD)/2429/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside an assessment order lacking service. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of disputed tax within two weeks. Upon compliance, the order becomes a show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner four weeks to object before a reassessment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to deposit 25% of disputed tax within 2 weeks; impugned order treated as show-cause notice if paid; petitioner to file objections within 4 weeks.

Tvl P Karuppaiah Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2438 and 2442 of 2024

P.Karuppaiah

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Tax Officer, Pudukottai-II Circle, Pudukottai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of the respondent vide GSTIN: 33BNCPK6605F1ZD/2020-21 dated 18.07.2023 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2020-21.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 18.07.2023 relating to the assessment year 2020-2021.

¶20

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 GSTIN portal and his accountant has not intimated the same to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.

¶21

The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. 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-7.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the

¶23

recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024

¶27

vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P. (MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 .

¶28

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 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 Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.

¶29

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 petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be 3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024

¶32

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 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.

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no

¶34

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

13.08.2024

¶36

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

¶37

To:

¶38

The State Tax Officer, Pudukottai-II Circle, Pudukottai.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024

¶42

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶43

Nsr

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2024

¶45

13.08.2024

¶46

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

¶47

5/5

Tvl P Karuppaiah v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl P Karuppaiah 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

Vijayakumar Vs The Transport Commissioner

G.Fasel Basha Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Tvl Ohm Namasivaya Papers And Boards Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl P Karuppaiah Vs The State Tax Officer

Vairamuthu Chettiyar Vs The Commissioner

Subramanian Vs Income Tax Department