M/S. A. Rajeshkumar vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2024. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the impugned assessment order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would have four weeks to submit their objections with supporting documents. The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass orders in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court held that if the deposit or objections were not filed within the stipulated periods, the impugned order would stand revived. The Court's reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission regarding medical treatment and the respondent's lack of serious objection to a final opportunity, aiming to provide a fair chance to address the discrepancies and exemption claims. The issue of whether vegetables are indeed exempted goods was not definitively decided but was to be addressed by the respondent upon re-consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.A.Rajesh Kumar – Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner, engaged in construction and supply of vegetables, contended that the impugned order illegally imposed tax on exempted goods (vegetables), violating Article 265 of the Constitution. The petitioner stated that they had remitted appropriate taxes for their construction business. The impugned order was passed after GSTR ASMT-10, DRC 01A, and DRC 01 were issued. The petitioner claimed they were unable to respond to notices due to medical treatment and only became aware of the order in September 2024. The core issue was a mismatch between GSTR-9 and GSTR-3B and the disallowance of exemption on vegetable supply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, which imposed tax on the supply of vegetables, is legally valid, considering the petitioner's claim that such goods are exempted under the GST Act and that the imposition violates Article 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the supply of vegetables is exempted under the GST Act. They contended that the impugned order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity to explain alleged discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and to justify the exemption claimed for vegetables. The petitioner also submitted that they were undergoing medical treatment during the relevant period, preventing them from responding to notices, and sought a final opportunity to present their objections. They relied on the judgment in 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. Respondent's contentions: The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent did not have serious objections to granting the petitioner a final opportunity, subject to certain conditions.