Sudha Travels vs. The State Tax Officer / Proper Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
Heard Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent herein for the assessment year 2017-18 confirming the demand of Rs.1,19,660/- as detailed below: Particulars IGST CGST SGST Interest Penalty GSTR 1 2,14,254.35 30,569.08 30,569.08 GSRT 3B 1,27,080.00 14,325.80 14,325.80 Difference /
Short Payment of tax 87,174.35 16,243.28 16,243.28 89462.38 16669.61 16669.61 10000 10000 10000 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings, as the petitioner was unaware of the notices that preceded the impugned notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the same only when the respondent proceeded to recover the aforesaid amount. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner be given an opportunity to represent the case, as the petitioner has the case on merits. 5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches. He would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C). 6.It is therefore submitted that the issue had attained finality and no further indulgence should be shown to the petitioner, as the petitioner neither replied to the show cause notice nor participated in the personal hearing notice, nor filed an appeal in time before the Appellate Commissioner nor approached this Court at an earlier point of time. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, this Court is inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax through Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 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 thereafter. 8.The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 issued to the petitioner earlier. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent, failing which the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 24.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To The State Tax Officer/Proper Officer, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamil Sangam Salai Circle, C.T.Complex, Thangaraja Salai, K.K.Nagar, Madurai 625 020. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
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.