Anantham Silks Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
HC Held that in the present case the department vide Form GST DRC-09 issued communication to the bank to recover the due from the petition u/s 79 without issuance of notice u/s 74(1) and without giving opportunity of being heard is not proper.
Facts-
During the course of the surprise inspection, the inspection team found certain irregularities in the transactions of the dealers and revision of assessment was made based on the inspection report.
It was alleged that the respondent has issued communication in Form DRC-01A pointing out the defects involving tax liabilities and for non-maintenance of accounts.
The petitioner alleged that the inspection and investigation have been conducted by different officers in a wrong manner, resulting in a misunderstanding of facts and misinterpretation of provisions, misapplication of tariff, and exemption notifications. The proceedings carried out were completely perverse and information and statements collected with intimation, an inducement of dropping of proceedings, are in complete violation of principles of natural justice and unreliable and the demand made in Form DRC-01A has to be rejected.
Conclusion-
On perusal of the materials, it is seen that there was a surprise inspection in the petitioner’s showrooms, Office and Godown from 14.09.2021 to 16.09.2021 and certain defects were pointed out and thereafter, explanation sought for. Though the petitioner had sent their objections and their authorized representative/Chartered Accountant appeared before the respondent, but they were unable to give proper explanation with supporting documents. This is a merit of the case. It is seen that after issuance of notice in Form DRC-01A, dated 06.12.2021, the respondent has issued Form GST DRC-01A. Thereafter, if the petitioner has got any objection and not paid tax as ascertained, a show cause notice has to be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act and after receiving objections, giving personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised. In this case, procedure not followed. It is also seen that following the impugned order, the respondent vide Form GST DRC-09, issued a communication, directing the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Ramanathapuram, to recover the amount due from the petitioner under Section 79 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which is not proper.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions challenging the impugned assessment orders for the following assessment years.
