Case Law Details
Sunshine International Agri Tech Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 13.12.2023 and 14.11.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The assessment proceedings arose from a show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 issued after several discrepancies were noticed by the authorities.
According to the respondents, the petitioner sought time to file a reply through Form DRC-06 and was granted three opportunities for personal hearing. However, no reply was filed within the stipulated time, and the petitioner again sought time on 27.02.2024. Consequently, the assessment order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to explain the discrepancies. The proposed demands were confirmed, requiring payment of IGST of Rs.73,352, CGST of Rs.8,08,521, and SGST of Rs.8,08,521. Although a suo motu rectification was later carried out, the liability remained.
The petitioner contended that a detailed reply had been filed on 21.03.2024, before the assessment order was passed, but the same was not considered. The respondents disputed this claim, pointing out the absence of acknowledgment or proof of filing.
The High Court observed that, even assuming there was no proof of filing the reply, the assessment order had been passed ex parte. Considering the petitioner’s submissions on the discrepancies and the contention that more than Rs.34 lakh had already been recovered from the petitioner’s account, the Court held that one more opportunity should be granted.
The Court set aside the impugned orders, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply within two weeks, and ordered that the bank account attachment be lifted.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned orders dated 13.12.2023 and 14.11.2024.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material records, it is seen that the impugned order is an assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is further seen that, upon noting several discrepancies, a show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 was issued to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner sought time to file a reply on merits through Form DRC-06 dated 21.01.2024. Thereafter, despite three opportunities for personal hearing, no reply was filed. The petitioner once again sought time on 27.02.2024. Subsequently, the assessment order came to be passed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to file any reply or explain the discrepancies. The demands proposed in the show cause notice were confirmed, and the petitioner was directed to pay IGST of Rs.73,352/-, CGST of Rs.8,08,521/-, and SGST of Rs.8,08,521/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. It is also stated that though a suo motu rectification was carried out, the liability continued to be fastened on the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though time was sought on 27.02.2024, the petitioner had subsequently filed a detailed reply on 21.03.2024. However, the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 does not take the said reply into account. Therefore, it is contended that even though the reply was filed after the last date of hearing, it was filed before the passing of the order and ought to have been considered.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner neither filed a reply within time nor effectively participated in the proceedings despite adequate opportunities. It is further submitted that if any reply had been filed subsequently, the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. It is also pointed out that there is no acknowledgment or proof of online filing of such reply.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material records of the case.
6. Even assuming that there is no proof for filing the reply, it is evident that the impugned assessment order has been passed ex parte. Taking into account the submissions made on the merits of the discrepancies and the contention that a substantial sum of more than Rs.34,00,000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner’s account, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves one more opportunity.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned orders are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the third respondent.
(ii) The petitioner shall file a detailed reply along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order.
(iii) The third respondent shall consider the same and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) In view of the setting aside of the assessment order and remand of the matter, the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account shall stand lifted.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
