Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ramesh Associates Vs State Tax Officer (Int) (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. No. 35262 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/11/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ramesh Associates Vs State Tax Officer (Int) (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to respond to notice issued for mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and non-payment of interest, it is directed that opportunity to explain discrepancies will be granted on payment of 25% of disputed tax.

Facts- The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing works contract service to the vendors of Indian Oil corporation and Hindustan Petroleum and is registered under the GST Act. During the relevant period of 2017-18, the petitioner has filed the returns and paid appropriate taxes. However, on a surprise inspection dated 04.07.2023 conducted at the petitioner’s businesss premises, mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A and non-payment of interest on delayed payment of tax was detected.

An intimation in Form DRC 01A was issued on 11.09.2023 followed by a notice in DRC 01 on 26.09.2023. However, the petitioner had not responded to any of the above notices / intimation and the impugned order came to be passed.

Conclusion- Held that the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the 1st respondent in GSTIN: 33AAPFM6002K1Z9/ 2017-2018 on the premise that the same is made in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing works contract service to the vendors of Indian Oil corporation and Hindustan Petroleum and is registered under the GST Act. During the relevant period of 2017-18, the petitioner has filed the returns and paid appropriate taxes. However, on a surprise inspection dated 04.07.2023 conducted at the petitioner’s businesss premises, the following defects were found Viz.,

i. Mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A.

ii. Non-payment of interest on delaed payment of tax.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an intimation in Form DRC 01A was issued on 11.09.2023 followed by a notice in DRC 01 on 26.09.2023. However, the petitioner had not responded to any of the above notices / intimation and the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD, instead it had been uploaded in the GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024, to submit that this court has remanded the matter back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 25% of the disputed taxes.

5. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.

6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above deposit is not paid or objections are not filed within the stipulated period, i.e., four weeks respectively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand restored.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728