M/S.Pushpam Marketing vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Pushpam Marketing, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, Kumbakonam Town Assessment Circle. The impugned order confirmed a demand proposed in GST DRC-01A dated 24.09.2023 and GST DRC-01 dated 29.09.2023. The petitioner contended that they had explained the purported discrepancies in their GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns, but the respondent passed the order without considering these explanations. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Commissioner.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order was non-speaking and liable to be set aside. It noted that the order merely recorded the notice and part of the petitioner's reply, and then stated that the petitioner's objection was examined and the demand confirmed, without providing detailed reasoning. The Court found this to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, ensuring that the order passed on remand is detailed with proper reasoning. The Court made it clear that the order to be passed on remand shall be detailed with proper reasonings. The writ petition was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent is illegal and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, particularly concerning the consideration of the petitioner's objections and the provision of a personal hearing, as contemplated under the relevant GST provisions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their objections regarding discrepancies between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns were not adequately considered. They further contended that the impugned order was passed without providing a proper opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to consider their objections on merits. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available by filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2.By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand proposed in GST DRC-01A dated 24.09.2023 bearing Ref.No.ZD330923164699S and GST DRC-01 dated 29.09.2023 bearing Ref.No.ZD330923246551F. 3.The petitioner's case is that the petitioner has explained the purported discrepancy in the returns filed in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. However, without considering the same, the respondent has passed the impugned order. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Writ Petition is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and therefore, the petitioner should be asked to work out the alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. 5.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and having perused the impugned order, it is noticed that the impugned order merely records the notice in GST DRC-01 dated 29.09.2023 bearing Ref.No.ZD330923246551F and part of the reply of the petitioner. Operative portion of the order thereafter merely records that the objection of the petitioner was examined in detail and has confirmed the demand. 6.Clearly the impugned order is non speaking nature and is therefore liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that the order to be passed in the remand proceeding shall be detail with proper reasonings. 7.The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 05.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To The State Tax Officer, Kumbakonam Town Assessment Circle, Thanjavur District. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
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.