Murugan Typewriting Institute Vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that assessee is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount since the assessee was unable to access GST portal and respond to the notice issued. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
Facts- The petitioner is engaged in the services of teaching typewriting and is a registered person under the Goods and Services Act, 2017. During the relevant period, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate However, during the scrutiny of the petitioner’s return, it was found that there was mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner in Form ASMT-10 on 28.01.2023, followed by a notice in DRC-01A on 24.04.2023. The petitioner was also issued show cause notice in DRC-01 on 05.08.2023 and reminders on 07.09.2023, 06.10.2023 and 18.10.2023. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor paid the tax amount. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed, confirming the proposal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was however rejected on the ground that the same is beyond the statutory period.
Conclusion- Held that the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent authority shall take into account the amount remitted by the petitioner in excess of the admitted tax, while reckoning 25% of the disputed On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material.
