Chokalingam Srinivasan Vs Deputy State Tax Officer I (Madras High Court)
Chokalingam Srinivasan filed a writ petition with the Madras High Court, challenging an assessment order from the Deputy State Tax Officer I, citing a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner, a works contract service provider, argued that while they had filed returns and paid taxes for the 2018-19 assessment year, discrepancies were noted between their GSTR-3B and Income Tax Form 26AS, as well as between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9/9C. Consequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 61 of the TN GST Act/CGST Act.
The petitioner’s counsel stated that notices (ASMT-10 and DRC-01) and a personal hearing opportunity were issued, but these were only uploaded onto the GST portal, not served via tender or RPAD. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of these proceedings and thus could not participate in the adjudication. Citing a similar case, M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, the petitioner requested the court to remand the matter, subject to paying 25% of the disputed taxes. The petitioner also noted that their bank account had been attached for recovery. The respondents did not object to this request.
The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed taxes within four weeks. Any previously recovered amounts would be adjusted against this 25%. Upon compliance, the assessment order would be treated as a show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner four weeks to file objections with supporting documents. The court also ordered the lifting of the bank account attachment upon payment of the 25%. Failure to comply with these conditions would result in the restoration of the original assessment order.
