Murugan Metals Vs State Tax Officer (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Murugan Metals Vs State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.12.2023 due to the petitioner’s claim of insufficient opportunity to contest the tax demand. The petitioner argued that an error in filing the annual return, choosing Column 6[D] instead of Column 6[B], led to the tax proposal. They claimed they were unaware of the order until a bank attachment notice was received on 17.05.2024. The petitioner submitted that the assessing officer had not considered their GSTR 3B returns, which were included in their reply dated 11.01.2023. The Additional Government Pleader countered that the petitioner failed to reconcile discrepancies via GSTR 9C and did not fully participate in the proceedings. The Court decided to set aside the impugned order, requiring the petitioner to remit 5% of the disputed tax demand and submit additional documents within two weeks. The respondent is then directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months. The Court also ordered the release of the bank attachment and disposed of the petition without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
