Madhava Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) Inspection (Madras High Court)
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court recently rendered a verdict regarding GST assessment orders in the case of Madhava Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) Inspection.
The crux of the matter lies in the issuance of assessment orders spanning from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024, challenged through writ petitions. The petitioner, upon receiving a show cause notice dated 02.10.2023, promptly responded with an interim reply on 02.11.2023. However, the subsequent assessment orders, dated 15.02.2024, failed to take into account this interim reply, prompting legal action.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out the omission of the interim reply in the adjudication process. The petitioner had diligently addressed each defect in the interim reply, which was also uploaded on the portal. Despite assertions of timely submission, the respondent contended that certain documents, including the interim reply, were not uploaded as per their claims.
Upon scrutiny of the documents, the court found that the interim reply was indeed submitted on 02.11.2023, as evidenced by various correspondences. However, the assessment orders conspicuously lacked any reference to this crucial submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the orders issued without considering the petitioner’s interim reply could not stand legal scrutiny.
