Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering PVT LTD vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, NTC Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt Ltd, filed three writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 29.09.2023 and consequent summary orders in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that notices issued in Form DRC-01 on 04.08.2023 were not received and were only posted on the portal, leading to a failure to respond. Furthermore, a reply filed by the petitioner to a notice in Form DRC-01A dated 24.05.2023, submitted on 05.06.2023, was allegedly not considered by the respondents. The impugned orders, according to the petitioner, did not discuss this reply and wrongly recorded that no reply was offered despite opportunities.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders dated 29.09.2023, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Acts, and the consequent summary of orders in Form GST DRC-07, were liable to be quashed. The primary reasoning was that the orders were 'non-speaking' and failed to allude to the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued in Form DRC-01A on 24.05.2023. The Court noted that the respondents' orders merely recorded that despite opportunities, the petitioner had not offered any reply, which contradicted the petitioner's submission that a reply was indeed filed and not considered. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders must consider all submissions made by the assessee, especially when a reply has been filed, and failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. The Court remitted the case back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits within six weeks, directing the petitioner to treat the quashed order as a corrigendum to the show cause notice and file a detailed reply.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment orders passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed for being non-speaking and failing to consider the petitioner's reply to notice DRC-01A dated 24.05.2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices in Form DRC-01 were not received, and were directly posted on the portal, preventing a timely response. They further contended that their comprehensive reply to the notice in Form DRC-01A, filed on 05.06.2023, was not considered by the respondents, as evidenced by the absence of any discussion on this aspect in the impugned orders. The petitioner asserted that the orders erroneously stated that no reply was offered despite opportunities. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C O M M O N O R D E R Writ Petitions are filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order under section 73 of the TNGST Acts dated 29.09.2023 and the consequent summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.09.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent independently having Ref.No.ZD330923244394B for the year 2020-21, ZD330923244003S for the year 2021-22, ZD330923244135J for the year 2022-2023. 2. By these common order all the three writ petitions have been disposed of. _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024
In these Writ petitions the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment orders dated 29.09.2023 in Form GST DRC-07. For the above mentioned assessment orders petitioner was issued with notices for the respective assessment years in Form DRC-018 to which the petitioner has replied. It is a comprehensive reply. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the notices issued in DRC-01 on 04.08.2023 for the respective assessment years were not received by the petitioner and directly posted in the portal which the petitioner therefore failed to write and then failed to respond.
It is further submitted that although the reply filed by the petitioner to notice in DRC-01A dated 24.05.2023 was replied on 05.06.2023 it has not been considered by the respondent. Reading of the impugned order indicates that there is no discussion on this aspect. It merely records that despite opportunity being given to the petitioner of being heard petitioner, the petitioner has not offered any reply to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. Thus, the demand was confirmed U/s. 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017. _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024
Considering the same and having perused the impugned order and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, I am of the view that the impugned orders have to be quashed and case be remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits as admittedly the impugned orders are non speaking and do not allude to the reply filed by the petitioner to notice issued in DRC-01A on 24.05.2023. 6. It is expected that respondents pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall file a detailed reply by treating the impugned order which stands quashed as corrigendum to the show cause notice which preceded the respective impugned orders. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 16.04.2024. Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order kpr _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024 Copy To: 1.Commercial Tax Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence Erode Division Commercial Taxes Annexe Building No.161,Meenashi Sundaranar Salai Erode-638001 Tamil Nadu 2.Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC Erode Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence Erode Division Commercial Taxes Annexe Building No.161, Meenakshi Sundaranar Salai Erode-638001 Tamil Nadu _____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1471 to 1473 of 2024 C.SARAVANAN
, J.
kpr W.P.(MD)Nos.1471 to 1473 of 2024 16.04.2024 _____________ 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.