Case Law Details
M. Venkataraj Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Venkataraj vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) [W.P. No. 18949 of 2023 dated November 8, 2023] directed the Revenue Department to dispose of the rectification application filed by the Petitioner within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Facts: Venkataraj, (“the Petitioner”) is registered under the GST operating under the name and style of M/s. Sri Malleswara Enterprises. The Revenue Department (“the Respondent”), issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 74(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), interalia, alleging that, the Petitioner is liable to pay tax under Sections 9(1) and 9(3) of the CGST Act, on the ground that, the Petitioner has not disclosed the correct turnover pertaining to disposal of minerals and seigniorage fee (Royalty paid to the Government for removal or consumption of minerals) paid to the government. Therefore, the Respondent proposed to raise the demand on forward charge basis for alleged suppression of aggregate turnover and on reverse charge basis for seigniorage fees. The Petitioner, however, disputed the figures, claiming they matched the annual returns, and filed a rectification application on May 30, 2023.
The Respondent has, however, contended that the rectification application has not been filed on the ground that, there is a discrepancy in date of receiving and date of the application.
Held: The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 18949 of 2023 noted that, the Petitioner has restricted the submission to the extent of disposal of the rectification application. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the Respondent to dispose the rectification application filed by the Petitioner within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order,
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
All these writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned orders dated 27.12.2022 passed by the respondent herein.
2. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of TNGST Act and has been running his business in the name and style of “Sri Malleswara Enterprises” and has been filing returns and paying taxes. While so, the respondent had issued an intimation on 03.11.2022 under Section 74(5) alleging tax due under Section 9 (1) & Section 9(3) of the The demand was raised based on the seigniorage fee details allegedly collected from the Mines Department which showed that the petitioner did not show the correct turn over of disposal of minerals and the seigniorage fee paid to the department. Therefore, a demand was proposed on forward charge for alleged suppressed turnover and on reverse charge for seigniorage fees.
3. he grievance expressed by the petitioner was that he has filed annual returns wherein he has mentioned the seigniorage charges paid to the Department. The figures mentioned in the intimation did not belong to the petitioner and hence he had immediately approached the Mines Department for confirmation regarding the However, the respondent had issued the Show Cause Notice.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the intimations received by the petitioner from the Mines Department are matching with the returns filed with the respondent Department. As per the annual returns, they have paid the entire tax dues. However, the respondent now have re-determined the turn over so as to impose more tax on the petitioner based on the seigniorage charges details said to have been received by the respondent Department from the Mines Since the petitioner also received the said details from the Mines Department and the same are matching with the annual returns filed by the petitioner, without providing above details of the application of seigniorage charges received by the Department, now the sales turnover has been determined by the respondent. In this regard, he would submit that he has filed a rectification application on 30.05.2023.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the acknowledgement filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers for having filed the rectification application on 03.04.2023 whereas, according to the petitioner, he has filed the application on 05.2023.
6. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue the rectification application and the Court may direct the respondent to dispose of the said application to enable the petitioner to file reply to the impugned orders.
7. The learned Government Advocate would submit that no such application has been filed by the petitioner and in the event of any such application is being filed by the petitioner, the same would be considered.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials on record.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent, since the petitioner has restricted his submission to the extent of disposal of the rectification application dated 05.2023 filed by him or any other applications, if any already filed, the respondent is directed to dispose of the rectification application filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, all these writ petitions are disposed There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
*****
Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
