Tvl Vaigai Printers And Publishers vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Vaigai Printers and Publishers, represented by its Trustee, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai. This order was preceded by a notice in DRC 01 dated 19.09.2023 for the period July 2017 to March 2023. The petitioner had paid the disputed tax on 13.10.2023, which was confirmed in the impugned order. The petitioner argued that Section 74 of the GST Act was wrongly invoked and that they were entitled to three personal hearing notices as per Section 75, having received only one on 26.12.2023 after paying the tax. The respondent contended that by paying the tax, the petitioner admitted liability, negating the need for further personal hearings.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh assessment proceedings. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner had paid the tax liability, they were given an opportunity to justify why Section 74 of the GST Act should not have been invoked. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they were new to the GST regime and that the mistake, if any, was unintentional. The Court also noted that the petitioner would not claim a refund of the tax paid. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was granted 30 days to provide a reply, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to a proper explanation and a fresh hearing. The writ petition was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act was justified, considering the petitioner's submission that they were new to the GST regime and the mistake, if any, was unintentional. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to three personal hearing notices as per Section 75 of the GST Act, despite having paid the disputed tax liability. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 74 was not applicable as there was no intention to evade tax, and any error was due to their unfamiliarity with the GST regime, especially for the period July 2017 to March 2023. They also contended that they were entitled to three personal hearing notices under Section 75 of the GST Act. The petitioner stated they would not dispute the tax paid on 13.10.2023 and sought an opportunity to explain their position. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner admitted their tax liability by paying the tax on 13.10.2023, rendering their request for a personal hearing after compliance untenable. The respondent did not explicitly address the petitioner's claim regarding the number of personal hearing notices.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 29.12.2023. The impugned order has preceded a notice in DRC 01 dated 19.09.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 (July 2017 to March 2023). 2.The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had paid the disputed tax immediately on 13.10.2023, which stands confirmed in the impugned order. It is submitted that no case was made out for invoking Section 74 of the respective GST Act. 3.It is submitted that the petitioner however failed to notice that pursuant to the notice in DRC 01 dated 19.09.2023 after the petitioner paid the tax on 13.10.2023, personal hearing notices were issued to the petitioner on 26.12.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise the petitioner is entitled for three personal hearing notices in terms of Section 75 of the respective GST Act. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has admitted his tax liability by paying the tax on 13.10.2023. It is therefore submitted that the question of petitioner asking for personal hearing after complying with the order cannot be countenanced. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture would submit that the petitioner will not dispute the tax paid on 13.10.2023. He would submit that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to establish that the petitioner had no intention to evade tax and that the mistake, if any, arise only on account of the fact that the petitioner was new to the GST regime and the demand is for the period starting from July 2017 to March 2023. 6.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and considering the fact that the petitioner has also discharged the tax liability and recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not claim for any refund of the tax paid on 31.10.2023, liberty is 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis given to the petitioner to give proper explanation to justify that the Department had no reason for invoking Section 74 of the Act against the petitioner. 7.Under these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law subject to the petitioner giving a reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent shall thereafter pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall also be heard, before a fresh order is passed. 8.The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 01.08.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), West Veli Street Circle, Madurai. 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.