Ms Saravanasakthi Engeniuss vs. Deputy State Tax Officer Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Saravanasakthi Engeniuss, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.03.2024 issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order of assessment was served on them, but rather uploaded to the GSTIN portal. The petitioner's registration certificate had been cancelled on 16.12.2020, preventing them from accessing the portal. The dispute concerns an alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, and GSTR-7 for the assessment year 2020-2021. The petitioner claimed technical glitches and adaptation to the e-mechanism caused their inability to respond. They offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax and requested a final opportunity to present their objections, noting they had already paid Rs.3,00,000/- in tax.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 should be set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order, with the tax already paid being adjusted towards this deposit. Upon compliance, the impugned order of assessment will be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner must submit their objections with supporting documents within four weeks. The respondent is then required to consider these objections and pass orders in accordance with the law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Failure to comply with the deposit or objection filing deadlines will result in the revival of the impugned order. The Court's reasoning implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's plea regarding non-service and the need for an opportunity to be heard, aligning with principles of natural justice and the precedent cited.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, issued by the respondent, is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the non-service of notices and the petitioner's inability to access the GSTIN portal due to a cancelled registration? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order is vitiated by a lack of proper service of notices, as the impugned order and show cause notice were only uploaded to the GSTIN portal, which they could not access due to their cancelled registration. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024). They also submitted that technical glitches and the learning curve for the GST mechanism contributed to their failure to respond, and they were willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax to present their case. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not raise serious objections to the petitioner's proposal to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and be granted an opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, though the context implies provisions related to notice, assessment, and opportunity of hearing under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 20.03.2024 relating to the assessment year 2020-2021. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner and it had been uploaded in the GSTIN portal. It was further submitted that the petitioner's registration certificate stood cancelled vide proceedings dated 16.12.2020 and the petitioner had no occasion thereafter to check the web portal. Thus, the petitioner was unable to access the GSTIN portal and 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 & GSTR-1 and GSTR-7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.
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. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already paid tax of Rs.3,00,000/- and his only request is that the same may be adjusted towards 25% of the disputed tax, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the tax already paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. 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 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 respectively, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 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/no Nsr To: Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle, Ramanathapuram. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Nsr
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.