Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : S.P.P. Silks Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.No.10120 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

S.P.P. Silks Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

In the case of S.P.P. Silks vs. State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2023. The order stemmed from an audit of the petitioner’s books of account, during which the petitioner raised objections to the audit observations. However, these objections were not accepted, leading to the issuance of an intimation in Form GST DRC-01 on 20.09.2023, followed by a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023. The impugned order was subsequently issued on 29.12.2023.

The petitioner contended that the language used in both the intimation and the show cause notice was identical, suggesting predetermination. Citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORYX Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, the petitioner argued that proceedings pursuant to a show cause notice that did not afford a reasonable opportunity to respond were liable to be interfered with. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the conclusions recorded in the impugned order mirrored those in the show cause notice and earlier audit observations.

In response, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had not enclosed necessary documents while objecting to the audit objections or responding to the show cause notice, leading to the confirmation of the tax proposal.

Upon consideration, the Court observed that the language used in both the show cause notice and the impugned order was indeed identical, indicating a lack of objective adjudication and a failure to consider the petitioner’s replies. Consequently, the Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit a reply within 15 days. The second respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months after duly considering the petitioner’s reply and the observations set out in the Court’s order.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

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
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031