Case Law Details
Amarjyothi Carrying Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Amarjyothi Carrying Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) heard by the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged an order dated 28.07.2023 primarily on the grounds of lack of reasonable opportunity. The case pertains to errors in filing GSTR-1 for October 2019, which were rectified in subsequent returns, GSTR 3B and GSTR 9.
Background: The petitioner, a registered entity under GST laws, operates in the transportation of goods sector. It was discovered that while filing the GSTR-1 return for October 2019, the petitioner failed to indicate GST leviable on reverse charge basis for services provided. However, this error was corrected in subsequent filings of GSTR 3B and GSTR 9.
Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner contends that they were unaware of the proceedings initiated regarding the GSTR-1 return until the impugned order was issued. They subsequently provided an explanation for the inadvertent error along with relevant documents, seeking another opportunity to rectify the issue.
Government’s Response: The Government Advocate representing the respondent acknowledges the delay in issuing the reply to the petitioner’s explanation. She mentions that the tax liability was already appropriated from the petitioner’s bank account following the impugned order.
Court’s Ruling: Considering the petitioner’s argument that the entire tax liability arose due to an inadvertent error rectified in subsequent returns, the court quashed the impugned order. It remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration, directing them to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months.
Conclusion: The Madras High Court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of providing taxpayers with a fair opportunity to rectify inadvertent errors in tax filings. It underscores the need for procedural fairness in tax assessment proceedings, ensuring that taxpayers are not unduly burdened due to genuine mistakes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 28.07.2023 is challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity.
2. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST enactments. The firm carries on the business of transport of goods. According to the petitioner, the services provided by the petitioner during the assessment period 2019-2020 were taxable on reverse charge basis by the recipient of services. While filing the GSTR 1 return for the month of October 2019, it is stated that the petitioner inadvertently failed to indicate that GST was leviable on the service on reverse charge basis. It is further stated that this mistake was corrected in the GSTR 3B return for the relevant month and in the annual GSTR 9 return.
3. In relation to the said GSTR 1 return, the petitioner states that proceedings were initiated and that the petitioner could not participate in such proceedings on account of being unaware of the same until such proceedings culminated in the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a communication dated 22.01.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 22.01.2023) wherein the petitioner explained the inadvertent error while filing the GSTR 1 return for the month of October 2019. He also points out that all relevant documents were annexed thereto. In these circumstances, learned counsel makes a request that the petitioner be provided another opportunity.
5. Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. She submits that the reply was issued long after the impugned order was issued. She further submits that the amount payable under the impugned order was appropriated from the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to an attachment.
6. The position taken by the petitioner is that the entire tax liability has arisen on account of an inadvertent error committed while filing the GSTR 1 return for October 2019. It is further stated that such error was corrected by filing the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns. The entire amount due and payable under the impugned order was appropriated from the petitioner’s bank account. Therefore, at this juncture, revenue interest is fully secured. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity.
7. For reasons set out above, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the avoidance of doubt, it is made clear that amounts appropriated pursuant to the impugned order shall abide by the outcome of the remanded proceedings.
8. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
