Tvl. S. Kumaresan Contractor vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.S.Kumaresan Contractor, engaged in works contract and registered under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 10.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin. The assessment pertained to the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner had filed returns and paid taxes, but a discrepancy was noted between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 filings. Notices (DRC-01-A and DRC-01) were issued, and personal hearings were scheduled. The petitioner claimed inability to access the GSTIN portal, hindering their participation in the proceedings. The disputed amount is not explicitly stated.
Held
The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 10.06.2023 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the impugned assessment order will be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner must submit their objections with supporting documents within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The respondent shall consider these objections and pass orders in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's inability to participate due to portal issues and the willingness of both parties to resolve the matter amicably warranted a fresh opportunity. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee demonstrates a genuine inability to participate in proceedings due to technical issues and shows willingness to comply with conditions, a High Court may grant a final opportunity for re-assessment. If the deposit or objections are not filed within the stipulated periods, the original assessment order will stand revived. No specific issue was left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.06.2023, passed by the respondent, is illegal and devoid of merits, necessitating its quashing and a direction for re-assessment, based on the petitioner's inability to participate due to portal access issues and technical glitches, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that technical glitches in the GST portal and the learning curve for assessees adapting to the e-mechanism prevented them from responding to notices and participating in adjudication. They sought a final opportunity to present their objections and were willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. They relied on the High Court's 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 for the respondent did not have serious objections to granting the petitioner a final opportunity, subject to certain conditions.
Sections Cited
Section 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order issued by the respondent in GSTIN:33AIGPK8199L1ZM/2020-21, dated 10.06.2023
The petitioner is engaged in the execution of Works Contract and is registered under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed his return during the period 2020-2021 and it is stated that they have also paid appropriate taxes. While so, a comparison of GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 reveals that there were certain discrepancies. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued in DRC-01-A followed by DRC-01 and a personal hearing was also granted on various dates, viz., 23.03.2023, 26.04.2023 and 22.05.2023. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.
The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would 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. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the introduction of GST, there were several technical glitches in the portal and the assessees were also taking time to adapt to the e-mechanism and it was only in view of the same that the petitioner was unable to respond to the above notices and the order of adjudication. 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 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 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. 17.10.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin - III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
, J.
BTR
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.