V.M.N.N Blue Metals Vs State Tax Officer (FAC) (Madras High Court)
The writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned proceedings in DRC-07 issued by the respondent for the relevant assessment years. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed prior to the show cause notices in GST DRC-01 being effectively addressed, as no replies were submitted to the notices, which resulted in the passing of the impugned orders. The respondent was represented by the learned Government Advocate, who took notice in all the writ petitions.
With the consent of both parties, the writ petitions were taken up and disposed of at the admission stage by the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought one opportunity to ventilate its grievance and requested that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that an alternate statutory remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the relevant GST enactments and that the impugned orders were passed only because the petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notices.
After considering the submissions and following the consistent view adopted by the Court in similar circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by remitting the matters back to the respondent, subject to specific conditions. The Court directed that the petitioner must deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount in cash from its Electronic Cash Register within thirty days from receipt of the order. The petitioner was also required to file a consolidated reply to the respective GST DRC-01 show cause notices, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned DRC-07 orders as an addendum, within the same thirty-day period.
