Allowed

Sri Ramana Agencies v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC23 Apr 2024WP(MD)/9963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court via a writ petition challenging an order confirming tax demand and imposing penalty and interest under the TNGST Act 2017, noting the petitioner failed to appear or reply during proceedings. The petitioner argued lack of proper notice regarding hosted notices and the impugned order. Subsequently, the petitioner paid the disputed

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and remitted to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits within 60 days; the petitioner was directed to file an objection within 30 days.

Sri Ramana Agencies Vs The State Tax Officer — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.9006 and 9007 of 2024

¶7

Sri Ramana Agencies, rep. by its Proprietor, Sivasubramanian Chidambaram, No.43, Big Bazaar Street, Pattukottai 614 601, Thanjavur District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

/vs./

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Pattukottai II Assessment Circle, CT Buildings, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in GSTIN. 33AHUPC1300N1ZI/2017-18 dated 29.09.2023 and the summary of the order in Ref.No.ZD330923230813H dated 29.09.2023 and quash the same as illegal,

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶16

against the provisions of law and without the authority of law and against the principles of natural justice.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandra Sekaran

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶21

2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 in his proceedings bearing Ref.No.GSTIN:33AHUPC1300N1ZI/2017-18.

¶22

3.By the impugned order, the demand proposed in the notices that preceded the impugned order has been confirmed. Apart from the demand that was confirmed, the petitioner has also been imposed with penalty under Section 73(9) of TNGST Act, 2017 and interest at 18% under Section 50(1) of TNGST Act, 2017.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶26

4.The impugned order has been passed, as the petitioner failed to reply as also appear for personal hearing, as it evident from reading of the impugned order, relevant portion of which is extracted below:-

¶27

“Note: Interest should be calculated upto the date of actual payment of the above differential tax due.

¶28

Accordingly, ASMT 10 notice, DRC-01 A intimation notice and show cause notice in DRC 01 have been issued in the references cited. On receipt of the notices, the dealer did not file any objections so far. Personal hearing also provided to the dealer in the stage of ASMT 10 notice on 18-5-2023 @ 3PM and 29-8-2023 @2.00 PM and 22-9-2023 @4.00 pm, but the dealer not appeared and not filed any objections as on date. It is presumed that there is none to offer regarding the defect pointed out in the notice.

¶29

Therefore I confirm the above proposal and determine the differential tax due to be payable for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.73(1) of the TNGST Act 2017, is detailed below. Differential tax liability determined under CGST: Rs.1,49,921-00 Differential tax liability determined under SGST: Rs. 1,49,921-00 Total differential tax liability determined :Rs.2,99,842-00”

¶30

Ex post facto on 30.12.2023, the petitioner has paid the disputed tax, as

¶31

has been confirmed vide the impugned order. The petitioner seeks indulgence to explain that no case was made out in the impugned order and therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order, as the petitioner failed to notice that the notices

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶35

that preceded the impugned order were hosted in the portal and that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order dated 29.09.2023.

¶36

6.Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and considering the fact that the petitioner has paid the disputed tax on 30.12.2023, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file reply/objection within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.

¶37

7.The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm

¶39

23.04.2024

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶43

¶44

The State Tax Officer, Pattukottai II Assessment Circle, CT Buildings, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶48

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶49

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.9963 of 2024

¶51

23.04.2024

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Sri Ramana Agencies v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramana Agencies 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gnanaprakasam Singaraj Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Palanisamy. Kc Vs The Commissioner

M.Muruganantham Vs The Commissioner

Margaret Vijayalatha Vs Tenkasi Municipality

Suresh Patel Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit Madurai-1)

Maithili Agencies Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II