Tvl. Farm Aid Service vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Farm Aid Service, filed three writ petitions challenging proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, the State Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Wing-II. The impugned proceedings pertained to GST for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, and were dated 14.02.2020. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed without addressing their specific contentions and without providing an opportunity to produce original documents. Furthermore, they argued that the 3rd respondent, being an inspecting authority, lacked the authority to proceed with assessments, as only the Assessing Officer (the 2nd respondent) is the proper officer under Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings.
Held
The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The Court noted that the affidavit on record indicated several issues that touched upon disputed questions of fact, which could not be determined in writ proceedings. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, the State Tax Officer (Intelligence), are without jurisdiction, considering that the proper officer for assessment under Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is the Assessing Officer (the 2nd respondent)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent, as an inspecting authority, does not possess the authority to conduct assessments. They contended that the proper officer for assessment, as defined by Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is the Assessing Officer, who is the 2nd respondent in this case. Therefore, the impugned notices and orders passed by the 3rd respondent are contrary to the provisions of the GST Act and Rules and are liable to be quashed. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Rule 142(1)(a), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) Nos.10779, 10782 and 10785 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.9487, 9489 and 9492 of 2020 Tvl.Farm Aid Service, represented by its Partner, P.Renganathan, aged 34 years, S/o.R.Pothirajulu, No.238, East Veli Street, Madurai 625 001. ... Petitioner in all W.Ps., /vs./ 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chitrakara Street Assessments Circle, Commercial Taxes Complex, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai 625 020. 3.The State Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Wing-II, O/o. the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence) Madurai Division, Commercial Taxes Complex, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai 625 020. ... Respondents in all W.Ps., COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the impugned proceedings the 3rd respondent
in GSTIN:33AAAFF5223A1ZB/2017-18, GSTIN:33AAAFF5223A1ZB/2019-20 and GSTIN:33AAAFF5
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.