Case Law Details
B.G. Shirke Construction Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
In the case of B.G. Shirke Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order issued on April 21, 2022. The petitioner, a registered VAT dealer, contested the respondent’s notice demanding reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.6,05,267/- for the fiscal year 2016-2017, along with penalties and interest. Despite paying the disputed amount, the petitioner’s appeal was mishandled due to the death of their Sales Tax Practitioner, resulting in no appeal being filed. The court, recognizing the procedural issues and the payment already made, granted the petitioner the right to appeal within 30 days. The court instructed the Appellate Authority to accept the appeal and verify the payment made by the petitioner. The original impugned order was to be returned to facilitate this process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent herein in his proceedings in TIN/333010001985/2016-2017 dated 21.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the VAT Act and is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The respondent has issued a notice dated 18.04.2022 for the year 2016-17 stating that Input Tax Availed on purchase of capital goods amounting to Rs.6,05,267/- is not eligible and to be reversed. The respondent has proposed to impose penalty under Section 27(4) and interest under Section 42(3) at 24% per annum. The petitioner filed the reply on 19.04.2022 stating that due to inadvertent error the ITC on capital goods was claimed, but, however stated that since the ITC was only claimed and not utilized, as the petitioner had sufficient credit and sought for refund of excess ITC, the levy of penalty and interest will not arise. The petitioner also made the payment of Rs.6,05,236/- being ineligible relied on the order of the Appellant Deputy Commissioner Petitioner’s e in STA No.782/15 and STA No.51/16 dated 05.03.2021 for the financial year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 was also not considered by the respondent. The respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 confirming the proposal of interest amount to Rs.7,19,555/- and penalty of Rs.3,02,634/-. The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, which was also rejected. Hence, both the impugned order as well the revision order passed against the provisions of Act. Meanwhile, the appellant has paid the entire demand of Rs.10,22,189/-.
3. He further submits that the petitioner entrusted the case to challenge the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 to one Chandrasekar, Sales Tax Practitioner, who informed the petitioner that the appeal has been filed and provided the acknowledgment. When the petitioner sought for the status of the case update, they were informed that Chandrasekar died and when the update as to the status was checked with the Appellate Authorities, they informed that no such appeal was filed. The time for filing an appeal has also expired. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the in present case, the petitioner has supposed to file an appeal, but, no appeal was hence, the petitioner may be directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand and a suitable order may be passed.
5. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire demand amount was already paid.
6. Considering the facts that the petitioner entrusted the case to challenge the impugned order to Chandrasekar, who is a Chartered Accountant, who informed the petitioner that the appeal has been filed, but, when the status was checked with the Appellate Authority, they informed that no appeal was filed, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Appellate Authority is directed to accept the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The amount paid by the petitioner has to be verified by the Appellate Authority.
The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the authority concerned.
Author Bio
