Case Law Details
Tvl.Gurusamy Shanmugaiah Vs Deputy State Tax Officer -1 (ST) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that order set aside as petitioner was unaware of notices being uploaded on GST common portal. Accordingly, respondent directed to pass fresh order on merits.
Facts- Vide the present petitions, the petitioner has challenged the respective assessment orders passed for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20.
It is contended that petitioner was unaware of the notices as these notices were uploaded in the GST common portal. Further, demand was confirmed by the impugned order since petitioner failed to furnish reply.
Conclusion- Held that to balance the interest of the parties, the impugned orders can be set aside subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the respective assessment years. Further, the petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within the aforesaid period. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. It is expected that the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 2 months thereafter. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be heard before final orders are passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By this common order, all these writ petitions are being disposed of.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the respective assessment orders passed for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20.
3. By the impugned orders, the demands that were proposed in the notices that preceded the impugned orders have been confirmed. It is submitted that the petitioner has not replied to any of the notices that were issued to the petitioner that preceded the impugned orders.
4. The only explanation that is forthcoming from the petitioner is that the petitioner was unaware of the notices that were issued to the petitioner, as these notices were uploaded in the GST common portal. It is submitted that for the same reason, the petitioner was also unaware of the impugned orders that were passed on the respective dates.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to explain the case, as the dispute only relates to the treatment of the transaction by the petitioner’s supplies as Business to Consumer instead of Business to
6. It is submitted that the petitioner is a dealer and is therefore entitled to input tax credit on the tax borne by the petitioner on the supplies made by the It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained a certificate from the Chartered Accountant to substantiate the same.
7. Although the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that these writ petitions are without merits, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440 and the appellate remedy as far as the assessment orders for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20 are concerned, is time barred, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C), I am of the view that to balance the interest of the parties, the impugned orders can be set aside subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the respective assessment years.
8. The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within the aforesaid period. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. It is expected that the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 2 months thereafter. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be heard before final orders are passed.
9. These Writ Petitions stand allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
