Tvl. Anwar Traders vs. The State Tax Officer (Inspn.) - 4
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Anwar Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (Inspn.) - 4, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner's premises were inspected from 17.04.2023 to 19.04.2023, during which certain defects were noted. The petitioner paid CGST Rs.16,742/- and SGST Rs.16,742/- on 19.04.2023 for defect No.2. Subsequently, notices in Form GST DRC-01A and DRC-01 were issued. The petitioner failed to respond to these notices and multiple personal hearing notices, though they claim to have responded to the last one. The respondent proceeded to pass the assessment order, noting the petitioner's failure to file objections or avail personal hearing opportunities.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 04.03.2024. The Court reasoned that to balance the interests of both the petitioner and the Revenue Department, and considering the petitioner's conduct in depositing a part of the amount due, a fresh opportunity was warranted. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within three months. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2023. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply within 30 days and deposit 10% of the balance amount within the same period. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must be heard before a final order is passed. It was made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount or file the reply within the stipulated time, the respondent is at liberty to proceed, and the writ petition would be considered dismissed in limine.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 04.03.2024, passed under Section 74 of the GST enactments for the assessment year 2017-18, is liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, and if the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to redo the assessment proceedings. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they have a fair case to defend and requested one more opportunity to respond to the notices issued by the respondent, seeking a reasonable amount of time as deemed fit by the Court. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits, citing the availability of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST enactments, and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 67, Section 50(1), Section 74(5), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Assessment Order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the respondent under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The petitioner's premise was inspected from 17.04.2023 to 19.04.2023 under Section 67 of the TNGST Act, 2017, wherein, certain defects were pointed out. It appears that in response to the same, the petitioner has paid certain amounts which has been captured in the impugned Assessment Order which reads as under:- For defect No.2 the tax payer paid the tax due of CGST Rs.16,742/- & SGST Rs.16,742/- through DRC-03 on 19.04.2023 (ARN AD330423029052P) at the time of inspection and proposed levy of interest under section 50(1) and penalty under sec.74(5) is confirmed.
Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Notice in Form GST DRC-01A dated 14.09.2023 followed by the Notice in Form GST _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis DRC-01 dated 23.09.2023. The petitioner failed to respond to the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with three Personal Hearing Notices dated 28.12.2023, 20.02.2024 & 27.02.2024. The petitioner has responded to the last mentioned Personal Hearing Notice dated 27.02.2024. However, there are no records to show that the said reply to the Personal Hearing Notice dated 27.02.2024 was received by the respondent.
The respondent, in the impugned order, has recorded that the petitioner has not filed any objection and since the petitioner failed to file a reply or avail of the opportunity to be heard, the petitioner is deemed to have no objections to the reasons stated in the notices.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has a fair case to defend and therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner to respond to the Notices. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner may be given a reasonable amount of time as the Court may deem it fit.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that this Writ Petition is devoid of merits, as the petitioner _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority namely, Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Madurai & Tirunelveli at CT Buildings, A.R.Line Road, Palayamcottai, under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments and therefore, pray for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and considering the conduct of the petitioner in depositing a part of amount in pursuance of the inspection, to balance the interest of the petitioner and the Revenue Department, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from today.
The impugned order which stands quashed in this order shall be treated as addendum to the Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2023. The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from today. The petitioner is also directed to deposit 10% of the balance amount within a period of 30 days from today. _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before the final order is passed.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner failed to deposit the amount or file reply or both within the aforesaid period, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine.
In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02.08.2024 Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN Copy To: The State Tax Officer (Inspn.) - 4, Office of the Deputy Commissioner (IW), Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. _____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN
, J.
JEN and W.M.P.(MD) No.15893 of 2024 02.08.2024 _____________ Page No. 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.