Disposed

Tvl. v. Kannan v The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC23 Oct 2024WP(MD)/25200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside the impugned GST assessment order and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks. Upon compliance, the order would be treated as a show-cause notice, affording the petitioner a further four weeks to submit objections before the adjudicating authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside; petitioner directed to deposit 10% of disputed tax to treat order as show-cause notice for fresh hearing.

Tvl. v. Kannan Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).No.21409 of 2024

Tvl.V.Kannan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Chokkikulam Circle, Madurai.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of respondent vide GSTIN: 33AIGPK8199L1ZM/2019-20, dated 10.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2019-20.

¶13

For Petitioner For Respondent

¶14

: Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan : Mr.J.K.Jayselan Government Advocate

¶15

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.06.2023 relating to the assessment year 2019-20.

¶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 by tender or RPAD, instead it had been uploaded in the GSTIN portal. It was further submitted that the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and 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-07 vs GSTR-01 and GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B. 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 above discrepancies.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Sree Manoj International Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer in W.P.No.10977 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024 .

¶22

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024

¶24

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 10% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted

¶25

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.

¶26

In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 10% 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 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 objections are not filed within the stipulated period,

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024

¶30

i.e., two weeks and four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶31

this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived.

¶32

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

¶33

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

23.10.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm

¶35

¶36

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Chokkikulam Circle, Madurai.

¶37

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024

¶39

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.25200 of 2024

¶42

23.10.2024

¶43

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tvl. v. Kannan v The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. v. Kannan v The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuppiah @ Ilayaraja Vs The Commissioner

Babu Khan Mohammed Sha Pannadi Bee Dargha Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

S.John Santhiyagu Vs The Managing Director

Sripathi Paper And Boards Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M.Muthafa Ali Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

M/s. Winet Communications Vs The Superintendent