M/S. Smr Transport vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (State)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. SMR Transport, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (State), Tuticorin. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing a willful mismatch between figures in Form GSTR 3B and Form GSTR 2A. The petitioner contended that the entire process, including the issuance of the show cause notice and the final order, was conducted solely by uploading documents to the portal, which prevented them from utilizing the opportunity to respond. The respondent argued that uploading documents to the portal constitutes valid service as per the Act and rules, and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition on specific terms. It held that while the respondent's argument regarding service by portal upload has merit under the Act and rules, the Court, in its discretion, decided to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to present their case. The reasoning was based on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's stated reason for non-participation. The Court's decision was to set aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 and remand the matter back to the respondent for fresh disposal. This was conditioned upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon deposit, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a reply, submit documents, and raise all factual and legal grounds before the respondent, who would then pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The freezing of the bank account was also directed to be raised.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of the show cause notice and the order on the portal constitutes proper service of notice to the petitioner, thereby precluding them from challenging the proceedings on the grounds of lack of opportunity? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of service provisions under the TNGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the sole reliance on portal uploads for communication denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings. They sought to quash the order and have the matter remanded. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that as per the TNGST Act and its rules, uploading of the show cause notice and the order on the portal is considered valid service. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of not availing the opportunity was not a valid ground to challenge the proceedings, and the writ petition was filed belatedly.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. It is alleged that there is a willful mismatch between the figures reflected in Form GSTR 3B and Form GSTR 2A.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the entire exercise was conducted only by uploading the show cause notice and the order in the portal, the petitioner could not make use of the opportunity.
The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as per the Act and the rules framed thereunder, uploading of the show cause notice as well as the order amounts to service and therefore, without availing the opportunity, belatedly, the present writ petition is being filed.
I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the assessment order, the grounds on which the defects are noted 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and the tax liability on the other heads imposed. I have also considered the reason that is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition for not participating in the assessment proceedings.
On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner, however, on condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.
In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: (a) Within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount; (b) Upon such deposit, the impugned order, dated 19.02.2024 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh disposal; (c) It will be open for the petitioner to appear before the respondent and file a reply and also place on record such documents in 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis support of its claim and to raise all grounds, both factual and legal, before the respondent; (d) It is for the respondent to consider and pass orders afresh in accordance with law; (e) Needless to mention that since the impugned order is set aside, the freezing of the bank account shall stand raised; and (f) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. NCC : Yes/No 12.03.2026 apd To Commercial Tax Officer (State) Tuticorin I Assessment Circle, Tuticorin Tamilnadu. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
.,J.
apd ORDER MADE IN 12.03.2026 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.