Sundarapandian vs. The State Tax Officer 1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sundarapandian, a Government Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer – 1. This order confirmed demands previously issued in DRC-01A dated 26.10.2023 and DRC-01 dated 15.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner admitted to failing to notice the notices hosted on the common web portal and sought an opportunity to file a reply. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments. The dispute arose from a difference in turnover reported in GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B.
Held
The Court held that while no fault could be attributed to the first respondent for passing the impugned order due to the lack of a reply from the petitioner, the petitioner deserved a fresh chance to explain their case. The Court noted that the dispute stemmed from a difference in turnover between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B, and a response from the petitioner might have led to a different outcome. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days and file a reply within 30 days from the order's receipt. The first respondent was to pass fresh orders on merits within two months thereafter, ensuring the petitioner was heard. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the tax dispute itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to respond to notices due to oversight, should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the authorities, despite the existence of an alternate appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, a Government Contractor, failed to notice the notices hosted on the common web portal and therefore seeks a single opportunity to file a reply, offering to comply with any reasonable conditions imposed by the Court. They argue for a fresh chance to explain their case. Respondents' contention: The impugned order does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as the petitioner possesses an alternate statutory remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the first respondent for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. By the impugned order, the demand proposed in DRC – 01A dated 26.10.2023 and DRC 01 dated 15.11.2023 have been confirmed.
It is noticed that the petitioner has failed to respond to the notices and therefore, the impugned order has been passed confirming the demand proposed in the above mentioned notices.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government Contractor and failed to notice that the notices that preceded the impugned order hosted in the common Web Portal and seeks one opportunity to file a reply. _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is amenable to any reasonable conditions, this Court may impose.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, it is noticed that the dispute arises on account of difference in the turnover in GSTR – 7 and GSTR – 3B. Perhaps, if the petitioner had responded to the notices that preceded the impugned order, the petitioner may have succeeded.
In my view, the petitioner deserves a fresh chance to explain the case although no fault can be attributed to the first respondent for passing the impugned order, as there was no reply. Considering the same, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the first _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the Government from his Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order which stands quashed in this order shall be treated as Addendum to the show cause notices already issued to the petitioner that preceded the impugned order. The petitioner shall file a reply within a period of 30 days from today. The first respondent shall adjudicate the proceedings and pass fresh orders on merits within a period of two months thereafter. Needless to state the petitioner shall also be heard before final orders are passed.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Index : Yes/ No 30.07.2024 Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order smn2 To 1.The State Tax Officer – 1, Data Analytical Unit, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), Erode Division, Erode. _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), Trichy Division, Trichy. 3.The State Tax Officer (ST) (FAC), Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Kulithalai, Karur District. _____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN
, J.
smn2
2024 _____________ Page No. 6 of 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.