Tvl.Haritha Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Haritha Motots, represented by its Partner K.G. Senthil Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.12.2023, uploaded on 28.12.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural East Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the tax period of 2017-18 (July 2017 to March 2018). The petitioner contended that while there were discrepancies between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B returns, the deficit tax was paid in GSTR-09 on 14.03.2020, rendering the impugned demand unsustainable. The petitioner sought an opportunity to file objections and produce documents. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST).
Held
The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. This decision was based on the petitioner's submissions that they had paid the deficit tax and were willing to deposit an additional 10% of the disputed tax as security. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order. The impugned order, now quashed, was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, which the petitioner had not replied to. The respondent was directed to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months thereafter. The issue of the sustainability of the demand in light of the GSTR-09 payment was implicitly addressed by remitting the matter for a fresh consideration, allowing the petitioner to present their case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned demand order dated 20.12.2023 is sustainable when the petitioner claims to have paid the deficit tax in GSTR-09 on 14.03.2020, despite discrepancies between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B returns? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that since the deficit tax has already been paid, they should be given an opportunity to be heard. They further submitted their willingness to deposit an additional 10% of the disputed tax as security from their electronic cash ledger. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh assessment after affording them an opportunity to file objections and produce documents. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the respondent. However, the respondent is the authority that issued the impugned order.
Sections Cited
GSTR-01, GSTR-3B, GSTR-09
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the time of admission itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The specific case of the petitioner is that although there were discrepancies between the returns of GSTR- 01 and GSTR-3B, deficit tax was paid by the petitioner in GSTR-09 on 14.03.2020 and thus, the impugned demand is unsustainable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has already paid, the petitioner may be given one opportunity being heard.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is willing to deposit another 10% of the disputed tax as a security from 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis his electronic cash register.
Recording the above submissions, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice, that was issued to the petitioner, which was not replied by the petitioner. The respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 05.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural East Assessment Circle, Madurai 625 020. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
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.