M/S. Muthu Krishnan Subramanian vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Muthu Krishnan Subramanian, a works contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 25.08.2023, issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. A TDS mismatch occurred because Nanguneri Panchayat Union wrongly credited TDS at 2% to an old, cancelled GSTIN instead of the petitioner's current GSTIN, causing discrepancies between Form GSTR 7 and Form GSTR 1. The petitioner's subsequent rectification application filed on 24.09.2023 was rejected on 14.05.2024, citing the six-month limit for rectification, a delay attributed by the petitioner to the respondent.
Held
The Court held that the matter should be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties, particularly the petitioner's concerns regarding the TDS credit mismatch and the alleged violation of natural justice. The Court directed the respondent to review the petitioner's case, taking into account the TDS credit mismatch issue. The respondent was further instructed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a due opportunity of hearing, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for a fresh opportunity to be heard and to rectify the issues arising from the TDS credit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 25.08.2023, issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act 2017, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity afforded to the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They also highlighted that the rejection of their rectification application, filed promptly on 24.09.2023, was erroneous, as the delay in its disposal was attributable to the respondent and should not prejudice the petitioner. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity during the assessment proceedings and that there was no violation of natural justice. They asserted that any mismatch in Form GSTR 7 and Form GSTR 1 was due to the petitioner's error in submitting inaccurate information, and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order of the respondent, dated 25.08.2023, for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of assessment for the year 2022-2023 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that the Nanguneri Panchayat Union, where the petitioner had executed the works contract, wrongly credited the TDS amount at 2% deduction from the petitioner to the old cancelled GSTIN number instead of the existing GSTIN number, which resulted in a mismatch between Form GSTR 7 and Form GSTR 1 in the old GSTIN number. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel also submits that, against the assessment order passed by the respondent on 25.08.2023, the petitioner filed a rectification application before the respondent on 24.09.2023. However, the said application was rejected by the respondent on 14.05.2024 on the ground that no rectification shall be made after six months from the date of issuance of the assessment orders. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed the rectification application as early as 24.09.2023. The delay in disposal of the rectification application is solely on the part of the respondent and this delay should not be attributed to the petitioner.
The learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity during the assessment proceedings for the year 2022-2023 and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Government Advocate submits that it is the petitioner's responsibility to ensure accurate information is submitted. Any mismatch between Form GSTR 7 and Form GSTR 1 is due to the petitioner's error. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
This Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, remands the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to review the petitioner's case, taking into account the concerns raised regarding the TDS credit mismatch and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No (1/2)
smn2 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:- The State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle, Nanguneri. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 (1/2) ____________ 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.