Sundarapandian vs. The State Tax Officer - 1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sundarapandian, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the second respondent (Joint Commissioner, ST(Intelligence), Trichy Division). This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,68,988 in tax and Rs. 6,68,988 in penalty, totaling Rs. 13,37,976, for the assessment year 2022-23, allegedly due to turnover suppression. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as none of the preceding notices were served. The petitioner only became aware of the order when the respondents insisted on payment. The petitioner also noted that similar orders for other assessment years had been challenged and disposed of by the High Court by remitting the cases back for fresh orders. The petitioner had previously given an undertaking to pay Rs. 9,61,563.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, confirming a demand of Rs. 13,37,976 against the petitioner for the assessment year 2022-23, was to be set aside. The Court reasoned that the case was similar to other writ petitions filed by the petitioner concerning other assessment years, which had been disposed of by remitting the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of notices. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders on merits. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax (Rs. 6,68,988) within 30 days and file a consolidated reply within the same period. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within three months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, confirming a demand of Rs. 13,37,976 (tax and penalty) for the assessment year 2022-23, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically non-service of notices, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice because the notices preceding the order were not served. The petitioner only learned of the order when the respondents demanded payment. The petitioner relied on previous High Court orders in similar cases for other assessment years where the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh orders. Respondents' contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents in opposition to the petitioner's arguments regarding the violation of natural justice or the quashing of the order. The respondents were represented by the Additional Government Pleader.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the second respondent for the assessment year 2022-23. 3. By the impugned order, the following demand has been confirmed against the petitioner apart from the penalty as detailed below: Description CGST payable Rs. SGST payable Rs. Total Payable Rs. Tax
levied
for turnover suppression 334494 334494 668988 Penalty u/s.74 334494 334494 668988 Total Payable 668988 668988 1337976 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as none of the notices that preceded the impugned order has been served on the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order only after the second respondent had insisted the petitioner to pay the amount pursuant to the impugned order.
It is noticed that the petitioner has challenged the similar orders for the other assessment orders and that the orders have been passed by this Court.
It is noticed that the petitioner has given a reply on 15.03.2024 undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.9,61,563/-. It is also been noticed that the petitioner has challenged the same assessment order for other years in W.P. (MD)Nos.16985, 17215, 17839 & 17429 of 2024 which came to disposed off by remitting the cases back to the respondent to pass fresh orders.
Considering the same, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits subject to the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register of the petitioner to the credit of the respondent 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 addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.
It is expected that the petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with above deposit. The respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter . Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before passing the order. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 31.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The State Tax Officer-I, Data Analytical Unit, O/o. the Joint Commissioner (ST)(Intelligence), Erode Division, Erode. 2.The Joint Commissioner, (ST)(Intelligence), Trichy Division, Trichy. 3.State Tax Officer (ST)(FAC), Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Kulithalai, Karur. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2024 6/6 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.