Case Law Details
Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), the petitioner challenged an order dated 18.12.2023 primarily on the grounds of not being provided with a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner, engaged in providing goods transport services, stated that the services fell within the scope of the reverse charge mechanism.
The petitioner responded to a notice dated 03.07.2023 by stating that the difference between their GSTR 3B and Form 26AS resulted from providing services subject to GST on a reverse charge basis. However, the impugned order was issued on 18.12.2023 without calling for the documents referred to in paragraph 11 of the order. The petitioner expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondent, referred to the petitioner’s affidavit, which stated that the petitioner could not avail of a personal hearing due to viral fever. On the merits, it was argued that the petitioner had to establish that the services provided fell within the scope of relevant GST enactments.
Upon review, it was found that the petitioner’s reply included only GSTR 9, GSTR 9C, and income tax documents, without providing all relevant documents to establish the services’ categorization under Section 9(3) of GST enactments read with Notification No.13/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. However, the petitioner asserted that the services fell within the mentioned provision and notification. It was contended that documents establishing the transport of goods, including consignment notes, were available with the petitioner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
