Allowed

M/s. Janani International Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC29 Apr 2024WP(MD)/9885/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed Writ Petitions filed against Assistant Commissioner orders regarding GST underassessment. The court held that the petitioner must be given a fresh opportunity to substantiate the case with a detailed reply to the notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner directed to file detailed reply within 30 days and pay 10% of disputed tax; fresh hearing and orders on merits directed.

M/s. Janani International Private Limited Vs The… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8964 & 8965 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Janani International Private Limited, Represented by its Director M.Pandiyaraj, GSTIN 33AABCJ6445J1ZJ, 241/4, Rajapalayam Road, Chatrapatti – 626 102, Virudhunagar District.

¶8

... Petitioner in both the W.Ps.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi III Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Sivakasi.

¶11

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

3.Union of India, Ministry of Finance Raj Path Marg, 'E' Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110011. ... Respondents in both the W.Ps.

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶15

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.9885 of 2024:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in GSTIN.33AABCJ6445J1ZJ/2017-18, vide Reference No. ZD331223289248A, dated 31.12.2023, quash the same as cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the first respondent to pass order afresh by considering the objections and records filed by the petitioner on 15.5.2023 and 29.9.2023 after affording opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

¶16

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.9886 of 2024:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in GSTIN.33AABCJ6445J1ZJ/2018-19 vide Reference No. ZD330124023368R, dated 05.01.2024, quash the same as cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the first respondent to pass order afresh by considering the objections and records filed by the petitioner on 16.06.2023 after affording opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

¶17

For Petitioner in both the W.Ps. : Mr.S.Karunakar For R1 and R2 in both the W.Ps. : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶20

For R3 in W.P.(MD)No.9885 / 2024 : No Appearance

¶21

For R3 in W.P.(MD)No.9886 / 2024 : Mr.K.Maharajan Central Government Standing Counsel

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

2 . In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders both dated 31.12.2023 and 05.01.2024 for the Assessment Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 respectively, on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the amounts that were paid by the petitioner have also been ignored and tax has been confirmed on the petitioner in terms of the proposals contained in DRC-01 issued to the petitioner, which preceded a notice in DRC-01A for the respective Assessment Years.

¶25

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a Table to demonstrate the above deficiencies in the impugned order. That apart, it is submitted that even though the reply is skeletal, the petitioner has produced the documents during the personal hearing, which have not been

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶28

properly discussed, instead the Officer has merely rejected the submissions of the petitioner without any reasoning.

¶29

4 . Having considered the submissions made by the learned appearing for the parties, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders by giving the petitioner a fresh opportunity to substantiate the case afresh by filing a detailed reply to the respective notices issued to him in DRC-01.

¶30

5 . The impugned order, which stands quashed shall be treated as Corrigendum to the notice issued to the petitioner for the respective Assessment Years under DRC-01. The petitioner shall file reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also pay 10% of the disputed tax for the respective Assessment Years. For the Assessment Year 2017-2018, while arriving at 10% of the disputed tax, the amount paid by the petitioner as tax for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, shall be excluded and on the balance amount, the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days. The first respondent shall thereafter fix a hearing and call upon

¶31

the petitioner to come for a hearing. The petitioner shall produce all the

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶34

records and explain the case properly. The first respondent shall

¶35

endeavour to pass fresh orders on merits within a period of 30 days thereafter.

¶36

6 . Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶37

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No 29.04.2024 smn2

¶39

¶40

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi III Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Sivakasi.

¶41

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶42

3.Union of India, Ministry of Finance Raj Path Marg, 'E' Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110011.

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶45

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶46

smn2

¶47

W.P.(MD) Nos.9885 and 9886 of 2024

¶48

29.04.2024

¶49

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

M/s. Janani International Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Janani International Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

Jeyaraj G Vs Arulmighu Kallagar Sundaraja Perumal Temple

P.Vadivelan, Vs the Sub Registrar

C.Chinnakaruppan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Vishwadass Vs The District Collector

M/s. Raghav Industries Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Niviz Entertainment(Opc) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Mrs.Anita Udeep Vs Mr.v.Shree Nataraj