Quantum Associates Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In the case of Quantum Associates Vs Deputy State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court addressed a dispute involving a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, ultimately allowing the petitioner to contest the demand on its merits. This summary explores the background, arguments, and the court’s decision in detail.
Background
Quantum Associates, the petitioner, filed two writ petitions challenging an assessment order and a consequential attachment order issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings leading to the impugned assessment order because the show cause notice and the impugned order were only uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated through any other mode.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the tax demand was based on a mismatch between GSTR 3B returns and GSTR 2A. The petitioner contended that if given an opportunity, they could prove that only eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been claimed. Additionally, the petitioner was willing to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
Respondent’s Counterarguments
Representing the respondents, V. Prashanth Kiran, a Government Advocate, noted that a recovery notice was served on the petitioner on December 27, 2023, following the impugned assessment order. He argued that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings by at least that date. Moreover, the respondents maintained that the impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice and that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the petitioner to respond.
