Disposed

Tvl. a. Sekar v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC19 Aug 2024WP(MD)/7494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks to avail an opportunity of hearing. If complied with, the order is treated as a show-cause notice; otherwise, it stands revived.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax within two weeks to treat impugned order as show-cause notice and afford hearing.

Tvl. a. Sekar Vs The State Tax Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.6871 of 2024

¶7

Tvl.A.Sekar, Represented by its Proprietorship, A.Sekar.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), C.T.Buildings, 282, North Beach Road, Tuticorin-628 001.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of respondent vide GSTIN: 33AHAPS4265N1ZO/2019-20, dated 25.08.2023 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order issued by the respondent in GSTIN:33AHAPS4265N1ZO/2019-20, dated 25.08.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020.

¶20

2. 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 has been uploaded in the GSTIN portal. 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.

¶21

3. The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and taxable turnover mismatch between GSTR-7 and 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 alleged discrepancies between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B.

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the 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

5. 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

6. In view thereof, 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

¶28

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

¶29

3/6

¶30

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶31

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

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

¶33

order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶34

19.08.2024

¶35

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶39

¶40

The State Tax Officer-1, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), C.T.Buildings, 282, North Beach Road, Tuticorin-628 001.

¶41

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

¶42

5/6

¶43

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶44

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶45

BTR

¶46

W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2024

¶47

19.08.2024

¶48

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

¶49

6/6

Tvl. a. Sekar v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. a. Sekar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Indira Vs The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector

Gurusamy Vs The Commissioner

Mallika Dharmaraj Vs the District Registrar

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

Tamilselvan, Vs the District Collector

H.Mohamed Ismail Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board