Sundarapanidan vs. The State Tax Officer 1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sundarapandian, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, the State Tax Officer-1, for the assessment year 2019-20. This order was preceded by notices in DRC-01A dated 26.10.2023 and DRC-01 dated 15.11.2023. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper issuance of these notices, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the notices were posted on the GST common portal and the petitioner failed to participate. They also pointed out the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner may have a case on merits concerning the dispute over the difference in turnover reported in GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B. Acknowledging the potential merits and the violation of natural justice, the Court decided to grant partial relief. The impugned order dated 12.02.2024 was set aside and quashed. The matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent for passing a fresh order on merits. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices dated 26.10.2023 and 15.11.2023. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply within thirty days of receiving the order and deposit 20% of the disputed tax from the electronic cash ledger. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-issuance of proper notices to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without the proper issuance of the notices in DRC-01A and DRC-01, constituting a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that the notices were duly posted on the GST common portal, and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. They further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 12.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2019-20. The impugned order precedes notices in DRC-01A, dated 26.10.2023 and DRC-01, dated 15.11.2023. 2. Heard the learned counsels on either side and this writ petition is disposed at the time of admission after dispensing with counter.
The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of the aforesaid notices and therefore, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the notices that preceded impugned orders were posted in the GST common portal and the petitioner ought to have participated in the said proceedings. Instead, the petitioner has 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis chosen to remain mute and has suffered the impugned order. It is further submitted that in any event the petitioner is not without remedy, the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits as the dispute pertains to difference of turn over reported in GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B. Considering the same, I am inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case to the 1st respondent to pass fresh order on merits. The impugned order, dated 12.02.2024 passed for the assessment year 2019-20 which stands quashed hereby, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices in DRC-01A, dated 26.10.2023 and DRC-01, dated 15.11.2023. The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also deposit 20% of the disputed tax from electronic cash registered. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 29.07.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes gbg To 1.The State Tax Officer-1, Data Analytical Unit, O/o the Joint Commissioner, (ST) (Intelligence), Erode Division, Erode. 2.The Joint Commissioner, (ST) (Intelligence), Trichy Division, Trichy. 3.State Tax Officer, (ST) (FAC), Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Kulithalai.
4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
gbg
2024
5/5 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.