Case Law Details
Priya Tiles and Interiors Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (madras High Court)
The case of Priya Tiles and Interiors vs Deputy State Tax Officer revolves around a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, Priya Tiles and Interiors, challenges an original tax order dated December 30, 2023, on the grounds of not being provided a fair opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits.
The petitioner claims they were unable to respond to the show cause notice or participate in personal hearings due to various personal difficulties. They assert that the proceedings violated Rule 88C of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. Despite these allegations, the petitioner has agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for the case to be remanded.
Mr. T. N. C. Kaushik, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent, points out that the impugned order was issued after a notice in Form ASMT-10 and a subsequent show cause notice. He further contends that Rule 88C is not applicable to this case.
Court’s Analysis:
Upon reviewing the impugned order, it was noted that the tax proposal was due to a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B returns. The order confirmed the tax proposal primarily because the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice. Given these circumstances, the court determined that it was in the interest of justice to provide the petitioner with another opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits.
Court’s Decision:
The court set aside the impugned order dated December 30, 2023, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the receipt of the court’s order. During this period, the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Once the respondent verifies that 10% of the disputed tax demand has been received and the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice is in order, the respondent must provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to contest the tax demand. Subsequently, a fresh order must be issued within three months from the date of receiving the petitioner’s reply.
Conclusion:
The writ petition, numbered W.P.No.12682 of 2024, was disposed of based on these terms, with no costs assigned to either party. Additionally, the related miscellaneous petitions, numbered W.M.P.Nos.13832 and 13834 of 2024, were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
An order in original dated 30.12.2023 is assailed on the ground of denial of a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
2. By asserting that the petitioner was unable to respond to the show cause notice or participate in personal hearings on account of various personal difficulties, the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner also alleges that the proceedings were held in breach of Rule 88C of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
3. Mr. T. N. C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the impugned order was preceded by a notice in Form ASMT- 10 and a show cause notice. He also submits that Rule 88C is not applicable to the present case.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal pertained to a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B returns. Such order records that the tax proposal is confirmed because the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. In the facts and circumstances outlined above, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits, by putting the petitioner on terms.
5. For reasons set out above, the order impugned dated 2023 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner s 10 % of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the said period, the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice. Upon receipt thereof and on being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, 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 three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
6. W.P.No.12682 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.13832 & 13834 of 2024 are closed.
Author Bio
