Tvl K Senthilkumar Contractor vs. The Assistant Commissioner / Proper Officer (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.K.Senthilkumar Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Proper Officer (ST), Sivagangai Assessment Circle, for the year 2020-21. The petitioner had failed to notice a show cause notice (DRC 01) dated 27.05.2023. The dispute arose from a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and GSTR 7, specifically concerning the reversion of tax on works contract. The petitioner confirmed that the disputed tax amount had been paid after the impugned order was passed, but interest and penalty were levied due to the belated payment.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 21.11.2024 and remitted the case back to the respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner having paid the disputed tax and the possibility that the petitioner may have a case. The Court directed the respondent to examine whether the petitioner is liable to pay penalty for the belated payment of tax, while making it clear that the petitioner shall question the interest. The petitioner was granted 30 days from the date of receipt of the order to file a reply to the show cause notice, with the impugned order treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. The Court also stipulated that failure to comply with these conditions would be deemed as dismissal of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the respondent for the year 2020-21, is illegal and devoid of merits, requiring quashing and a direction for redone assessment proceedings? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the assessment order and the procedural fairness). The petitioner argued that the assessment order should be quashed and the proceedings redone, emphasizing that the disputed tax had been paid and the issue stemmed from a mismatch in returns. The petitioner also contended that the interest and penalty were levied due to belated payment. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
DRC 01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 21.11.2024 passed for the year 2020-2021. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner confirms that the petitioner has paid the disputed tax after the impugned order was passed on 21.11.2024. It is submitted that although the demand has been dropped, the interest and penalty have been levied on account of the belated payment of tax.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner failed to notice that the show cause notice in DRC 01 dated 27.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the dispute is purely on account of the mismatch between GSTR 3B returns filed by the petitioner and GSTR 7, after generating GSTR 7 indicating the reversion of tax on the works contract by the petitioner. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Considering the fact the petitioner may have a case and considering the fact that the petitioner has already depsoited the disputed tax, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order and remits the case back to the respondent to examine as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay penalty for the belated payment of tax. However, the petitioner shall question the interest.
Accordingly, the impugned order stands quashed and the case is remitted back to the respodent. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, dated 21.11.2024, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent shall endeavour to pass a fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible after hearing the petitioner.
It is also made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the condition stipulated above, it will be deemed as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. In this case, it is open for the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the respective GST enactments and the Rules made thereunder. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The writ petitin stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To The Assistant Commissioner/ Proper Officer (ST), Sivagangai Assessment Circle, Sivagangai – 630 562. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn
W.P(MD).No.20539 of 2025
2025 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.