Case Law Details
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
This article in context of the judgement RADIANT CASH MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD (W.P. No. 2981 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 3246 & 3247 of 2024) given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court on 11-03-2024 in regard to the Assessment Order levying the Demand of Tax – Proceedings on that Demand of Tax have been dropped by issuing the ASMT-12 after being satisfied with explanation furnished by the Petitioner in form ASMT-11.
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order levying the Tax, Interest and penalty. The demand of the Assessment Order except amount of interest and penalty is the same demand as proposed in the ASMT-10.
Facts of the Case
In relation to assessment year 2017-2018, the petitioner received a notice in Form ASMT-10 alleging discrepancies in returns filed by the petitioner. The notice was replied to by the petitioner on 22.09.2023. Thereafter, an order dated 27.09.2023 was issued in Form ASMT-12 dropping the proceedings upon being satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation. The show cause notice dated 22.09.2023 was issued prior thereto. Therefore, the petitioner replied on 18.10.2023 and pointed out that proceedings initiated pursuant to notice in Form ASMT-10 were dropped by issuing an order in Form ASMT-12 on 27.09.2023. The impugned assessment order was issued, in these facts and circumstances, on 29.12.2023.
Grounds before the Court
That the demand amount as per the Assessment Order towards IGST, CGST and SGST is the same demand as proposed in ASMT-10. The authorities accepted the petitioner’s reply and recorded that no further action is required to be taken in that matter. The ASMT-12 was issued accordingly. The petitioner contended the impugned assessment order is unsustainable.
Court’s Order
- On examining the notice in Form ASMT-10, the said notice pertains to financial year 2017-2018. The abstract of demand proposed therein is for an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,37,33,386.62 comprising a demand of Rs. 71,59,663.28 towards IGST, a sum of Rs. 32,86,861.67 towards SGST and a sum of Rs. 32,86,861.67 towards CGST. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s reply dated 22.09.2023, by order in Form ASMT-12 dated 27.09.2023, the respondents concluded that the reply was satisfactory and no further action is required.
- In these circumstances, it is necessary to examine the impugned assessment order to verify whether the same demand was resurrected. On examining the impugned assessment order, I find that the confirmation of demand relates to the same assessment period and the same amounts towards SGST, CGST and IGST. The only difference is that interest and penalty has been imposed thereon to arrive at the aggregate sum indicated therein. Upon issuance of an order in Form ASMT-12 recording that no further action is required, the continuation of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order is undoubtedly unsustainable.
- Consequently, the impugned assessment order is quashed. W.P.No.2981 of 2024 is allowed and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There will be no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is the subject of challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is engaged inter alia in the cash logistics business and is a registered person under applicable GST enactments. In relation to assessment year 2017-2018, the petitioner received a notice in Form ASMT-10 alleging discrepancies in returns filed by the petitioner. The notice was replied to by the petitioner on 22.09.2023. Thereafter, an order dated 27.09.2023 was issued in Form ASMT-12 dropping the proceedings upon being satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation. The show cause notice dated 22.09.2023 was issued prior thereto. Therefore, the petitioner replied on 18.10.2023 and pointed out that proceedings initiated pursuant to notice in Form ASMT-10 were dropped by issuing an order in Form ASMT-12 on 27.09.2023. The impugned assessment order was issued, in these facts and circumstances, on 29.12.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the notice in Form ASMT-10 and pointed out that the abstract of demand proposed therein indicates the amounts demanded towards IGST, SGST and CGST. She further submits that these amounts tally with amounts indicated in the impugned order. By further referring to the order issued in Form GST ASMT-12 on 27.09.2023, she points out that the GST authorities accepted the petitioner’s reply and recorded that no further action is required to be taken in that matter. Consequently, she points out that the impugned assessment order is unsustainable.
4. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, appears for the respondent. On instructions, she states that there is a difference between the amounts indicated in the notice in Form ASMT-10 and the amounts specified in the show cause notice and confirmed in the impugned assessment order.
5. On examining the notice in Form ASMT-10, the said notice pertains to financial year 2017-2018. The abstract of demand proposed therein is for an aggregate sum of Rs.1,37,33,386.62 comprising a demand of Rs.71,59,663.28 towards IGST, a sum of Rs.32,86,861.67 towards SGST and a sum of Rs.32,86,861.67 towards CGST. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s reply dated 22.09.2023, by order in Form ASMT-12 dated 27.09.2023, the respondents concluded that the reply was satisfactory and no further action is required.
6. In these circumstances, it is necessary to examine the impugned assessment order to verify whether the same demand was resurrected. On examining the impugned assessment order, I find that the confirmation of demand relates to the same assessment period and the same amounts towards SGST, CGST and IGST. The only difference is that interest and penalty has been imposed thereon to arrive at the aggregate sum indicated therein. Upon issuance of an order in Form ASMT-12 recording that no further action is required, the continuation of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order is undoubtedly unsustainable.
7. Consequently, the impugned assessment order is quashed. W.P.No.2981 of 2024 is allowed and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There will be no order as to costs.
*****
To reach to me for any suggestions, rectifications, amendments and/or further clarifications in regard of this article my email address is [email protected].
Author Bio
