Diamong Cargo Movers Vs State Tax Officer II (Madras High Court)
Accountant of firm failed to inform about notices that preceded impugned order confirming demand, an opportunity to ventilate its grievance before respondents was to be granted to assessee
The case of Diamond Cargo Movers Vs State Tax Officer II involves a dispute regarding the demand orders issued for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner, a firm, challenged the order passed by the respondent on 14th October 2023. The demand was based on two prior show cause notices dated 6th April 2022 and 20th July 2023. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of these notices, as their accountant had failed to inform them. Consequently, the petitioner did not have an opportunity to respond before the orders were confirmed, which led to a disputed tax demand. The issue was brought to the High Court after the department insisted on payment.
The Government Advocate countered by arguing that the writ petition was time-barred, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Limited (2020) and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008), asserting that the appellate remedy was also time-limited. However, the Madras High Court acknowledged the grievance of the petitioner and decided to allow them a chance to respond. The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case to the respondent for fresh proceedings. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days and file a consolidated reply. The case was to be decided on its merits, with a fresh order to be passed within three months, provided the petitioner complied with the terms.
