Case Law Details
Tvl. Sri Manikandan Plywoods Vs Assistant Commissioner(ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)
The recent judgment by the Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Sri Manikandan Plywoods versus Assistant Commissioner(ST)(FAC) addresses a procedural error concerning the posting of notices on the GST portal. This article delves into the key aspects of the case, including the petition’s grounds, the court’s hearing, and the consequential directives issued by the court.
1. Petitioner’s Grievance: The petitioner raised objections against the order dated 20.12.2023 and subsequent recovery notices dated 25.04.2024, citing a violation of natural justice due to the irregular posting of the show cause notice on the GST portal.
2. Legal Arguments: Mr. J. Adithya Reddy, representing the petitioner, argued that the notice was posted in the “View Additional Notices” tab instead of the customary “View Notices” tab, depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to contest the proceedings.
3. Precedent and Court’s Decision: Drawing upon precedent, particularly the case of Sabari Infra Pvt. Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), the court acknowledged the necessity of affording the petitioner a fair opportunity. Consequently, the court directed a fresh assessment order after depositing 10% of the Tax Component.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 20.12.2023 in reference No.GSTIN:33ALHPP2547B1ZF/2017-18 and consequential recovery notices dated 25.04.2024 in Roc.No.GSTIN.33ALHPP2547B1ZF/2024 and Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.05.2024 passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the proceedings have taken place violating the principles of natural justice.
2. Heard Mr. J. Adithya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that show cause notice has been posted in the “View Additional Notices” tab, instead of “View Notices” tab, which is the normal practice. The petitioner would have had an opportunity to contest the proceedings effectively, if it was posted in the “View Notice” tab.
4. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sabari Infra Pvt. Ltd. /vs/ Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.Nos.22369, etc., of 2023 dated 31.07.2023 reported in 2023(10) Centax 92 (Mad.) , wherein similar circumstances, this Court has held that the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity and the matter was remitted back to the Department to pass a fresh assessment order, after hearing the writ petitioner.
5. Following the decision passed by this Court in the above writ petition in WP. Nos.22369, etc., dated 31.07.2023, I am inclined to allow the writ petition with the following directions:
(i) the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 20.12.2023 in reference No. GSTIN: 33ALHPP2547B1ZF/2017-18 and consequential recovery notices dated 25.04.2024 in Roc. No. GSTIN. 33ALHPP2547B1ZF/2024 and Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.05.2024 passed by the 1st respondent are set aside.
(ii) The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the Tax Component as a precondition without prejudice for being afforded a fresh hearing to object to the show cause notice.
(iii) the petitioner shall be called for an enquiry by the respondent Department and the first respondent shall pass a fresh Assessment Order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Author Bio
