M/S Amman Try Steels PVT LTD vs. The State Tax Officer - V(Roving Squad)

It is true that the respondent had issued show cause notice to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order. 5.The writ petitioner submitted their reply. In their reply, the petitioner placed reliance on 2 circulars i.e., Circular No.199/11/2023- GST dated 17.07.2023 and Circular No.210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024. Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 reads as follows: “28.Value of supply of goods or services or both between distinct or related persons, other than through an agent. (1) The value of the supply of goods or services or both between distinct persons as specified in sub-section (4) and (5) of section 25 or where the supplier and recipient are related, other than where the supply is made through an agent, shall- (a) be the open market value of such supply; (b) if the open market value is not available, be the value of supply of goods or services of like kind and quality; (c) if the value is not determinable under clause (a) or (b), be the value as determined by the application of rule 30 or rule 31, in that order: Provided that where the goods are intended for further supply as such by the recipient, the value shall, at the option of the supplier, 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis be an amount equivalent to ninety percent of the price charged for the supply of goods of like kind and quality by the recipient to his customer not being a related person. Provided further that where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit, the value declared in the invoice shall be deemed to be the open market value of the goods or services. [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the value of supply of services by a supplier to a recipient who is a related person [located in India], by way of providing corporate guarantee to any banking company or financial institution on behalf of the said recipient, shall be deemed to be one per cent of the amount of such guarantee offered [per annum], or the actual consideration, whichever is higher.] [Provided that where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit, the value declared in the invoice shall be deemed to be the value of said supply of services.” Circular No.199/11/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023 reads as follows: 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Circular No.210 dated 26.06.2024 reads as follows: 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The assessee / writ petitioner herein had contended that since the recipient is eligible for full ITC and the writ petitioner did not issue any invoice, and value of transaction has been taken as zero, the aforesaid circulars are applicable to the transactions in question. However, the assessing officer did not consider the applicability of these 2 circulars at all. It is a well settled principle of administrative law that when a 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis defense raised by the noticee is not considered in the final order, the order is vulnerable on that ground. On the ground of non-consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent. The respondent is directed to consider all the contentions raised by the assessee in the reply and pass order afresh on merits and in accordance with law. I have not gone into the merits of the matter. 7.This Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

2025

2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis