Tvl Ohm Namasivaya Papers And Boards vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner had obtained GST registration but did not continue business after its introduction and had his registration cancelled. Subsequently, the respondent issued an order attaching the petitioner's property for alleged erroneous Input Tax Credit, without proper service of notice. The petitioner claimed he never conducted business under GST and was unaware of the proceedings.
Held
The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The order of assessment was treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections and receive a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned order of attachment and assessment was validly passed without proper service of notice and opportunity to the petitioner, especially when the petitioner claimed to have ceased business operations under GST.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order of the respondent in Order No.220709200141770 dated 23.08.2021 and consequently direct the respondents to refund the Input Tax Credit of Rs.4,91,553/- available in the petitioner's TIN No.33065044495. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who was carrying on business during the VAT regime though intended to continue even after the introduction of GST had also obtained registration under GST Act. However, did not continue his business after the introduction of GST.
It is submitted that the registration obtained by the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 15.10.2019. The petitioner having decided not to carrying on business had sold the property to Geetha through two registered sale deeds dated 03.08.2022 and shifted his residence. It is stated that the petitioner is presently residing at Thuraiyur, Trichy and employed in a private textile shop. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
While so, it is submitted that the petitioner received a call from the office of the respondent stating that the petitioner had erroneously entered the Input Tax Credit and there is a mismatch and notices have been issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner had not responded. The petitioner visited the office of the respondent and explained the alleged mismatch and a statement was also recorded by the respondent, who apparently informed the petitioner that the mismatch would be rectified.
On 01.06.2024, the petitioner was informed by the husband of the purchaser of the property that they have been served with a notice of attachment of the property sold to them by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the consultant who informed that the order dated 28.03.2021 has been passed, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner had vacated the address wherein he had originally carried on business and he was never served with any notice and the allegations that the petitioner had erroneously availed the Input Tax Credit is erroneous, inasmuch as the petitioner had not carried on business under the GST regime. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would then place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner had stopped carrying business under the GST regime and he had no occasion to verify the web portal. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
In view thereof, the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections along with supporting documents/material, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or the objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., two weeks and four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order respectively, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.08.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr To: The State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural West, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Nsr
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.