Tvl. Dharieneesh Housing Developers Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court addressed the grievance of Tvl. Dharieneesh Housing Developers against the State Tax Officer. The case revolved around a tax demand resulting from a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A forms. The petitioner argued that they were denied a fair chance to contest the tax assessment due to inadequate notification of proceedings. The court’s decision to remand the case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in tax assessments.
Background
The case began when Tvl. Dharieneesh Housing Developers challenged an original order dated November 28, 2023, issued by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the tax proceedings that led to the disputed order. The notices and the impugned order were reportedly only uploaded to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, without being communicated through other channels.
The tax demand was based on discrepancies between the petitioner’s GSTR-3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR-2A. The petitioner contended that they could prove the validity of their claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) if given a proper opportunity to present their case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented by their counsel, emphasized the lack of adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and attend the personal hearing. They argued that all necessary documents were available to demonstrate the legitimacy of the ITC claimed. The petitioner expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for the remand, indicating their readiness to cooperate with the tax authorities for a fair reassessment.
Respondent’s Position
On behalf of the respondent, Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, the learned Government Advocate, accepted the notice and pointed out that the impugned order followed an intimation dated July 13, 2022, a show cause notice dated November 14, 2023, and a notice for a personal hearing. Despite these communications, the petitioner failed to respond or attend the hearing.
