Sri Priya Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Priya Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 18, 2024, issued by the first respondent (State Tax Officer) for the tax period 2018-2019, along with Form GST-DRC-07. The petitioner also sought a direction to the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner) to lift the bank attachment initiated by a letter dated August 13, 2024, to the third respondent bank. The petitioner's primary contention was that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order of assessment was served on them, and the same was only uploaded to the GST portal. The petitioner claimed inability to access the portal and participate in the adjudication proceedings. The disputed tax amount is not explicitly stated.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order of assessment 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 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 shall consider these objections and pass orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Failure to deposit the tax or file objections within the stipulated periods will result in the revival of the impugned order. Upon payment of the deposit, the bank attachment shall be lifted forthwith. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding technical glitches and the need for adaptation to the e-mechanism, and the petitioner's willingness to pay a portion of the disputed tax.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order of assessment and Form GST-DRC-07 dated April 18, 2024, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-service of notice and inability of the petitioner to access the GST portal, thereby violating principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the provisions related to issuance of notices and adjudication under the GST Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper service of show cause notices and the final order, as they were only uploaded to the GST portal, which the petitioner could not access. They cited technical glitches in the GST portal and the learning curve for assessees adapting to the e-mechanism as reasons for their inability to respond. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The petitioner also expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections. Revenue's arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents did not raise any serious objection to the petitioner's request for an opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
GST-DRC-07
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 first respondent in GSTIN:33AVBPS5233M1ZE/2018-2019 along with Form GST-DRC-07 bearing Ref No.ZD3304241459757, dated 18.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019 and further direct the second respondent to lift the bank attachment.
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 GST portal. It was submitted by the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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-1 and also mis-match between GSTR-2A / 2B and GSTR-3B. 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 between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and GSTR-2A / 2B and GSTR-3B.
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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. 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. 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. On payment of such deposit, the bank attachment shall be lifted forthwith. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The State Tax Officer (ST), Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur-II Assessment Circle, Thanjavur. 2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), 20/3, Sachithanantha Monnpanar Road, Thanjavur. 3.The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Thanjavur. 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.