M/S. Ramaswamy Prabhaar vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 23.06.2023, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was liable to be quashed because it was passed against the petitioner without giving them an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. The Court reasoned that this violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the respondent. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice upon depositing 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. If the sum of Rs. 22,83,579/- had already been recovered, no further recovery would be permitted pending further orders. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, and the respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, ensuring the petitioner was heard before passing the order, preferably within three months.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Ramaswamy Prabhaar, a proprietor of a supermarket and textiles business, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer (FAC), under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the show cause notice preceding the impugned order and the order itself. The total tax liability demanded was Rs. 24,55,520/-, of which Rs. 22,83,579/- had allegedly been recovered by the respondent from the petitioner's credit and cash ledgers in February and May 2024. The petitioner apprehended further coercive recovery methods.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.06.2023, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the order was passed without providing an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and was therefore in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also contended that the order was passed without considering the relevant circulars and was passed without proper jurisdiction. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.06.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.11517 of 2024 M/s.Ramaswamy Prabhaar Propietor of M/sRamaswamy Margin Free Super Market and Textiles, GSTIN:33BKQPP2059F1Z0 No.27-31, Main Road, Colachel – 629 251. ... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer (FAC), Thuckalay -2 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Thuckalay. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN:33BKQPP2059F1Z0/2018-19 dated 23.06.2023 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of TNGST Act, 2017 and quash the same as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly wihtout jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh by 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis following the circular No.183/15/2022-GST [F.No.CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST], dated 27.12.2022.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Sudalaimuthu For respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Gove
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.