Karthik Kumar Yogapriya Vs State Tax Officer (FAC) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by Karthik Kumar Yogapriya, challenging a demand order issued by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner, an event management service provider, argued that the impugned order erroneously stated that no reply was filed to the show cause notice, when in fact, a detailed reply had been submitted on 17th August 2024. The petitioner had registered under the GST Act and filed returns for the 2018-19 period. However, discrepancies were identified during scrutiny, including issues related to under-declared outward supplies, reconciliation of GSTR forms, excess input tax credit (ITC) claims, and ITC claims from cancelled or defaulting dealers. The petitioner received a notice in DRC01 on 20th May 2024, followed by reminders, and responded with their reply, which was acknowledged.
The court, upon hearing the petitioner’s argument and reviewing the evidence, found that the impugned order had indeed overlooked the petitioner’s submitted reply. The respondent’s counsel, acknowledging the error, agreed to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner’s reply and providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, the Madras High Court quashed the original demand order and directed the respondent to review the petitioner’s reply dated 17th August 2024. The court mandated that a new order be issued after granting the petitioner a fair hearing. This decision emphasizes the importance of considering all submitted evidence and providing due process in tax-related matters, ensuring fairness and transparency. The writ petition was disposed of, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
