Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Tvl. Anandh Store Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No.14849 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/06/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Tvl. Anandh Store Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has addressed a dispute in the case of Tvl. Anandh Store Vs Commercial Tax Officer (W.P.No. 14849 of 2024). The court examined the discrepancies between the show cause notice (SCN) and the final order issued to the petitioner, ultimately directing that the impugned order be treated as an SCN.

The petitioner, Tvl. Anandh Store, challenged an order dated 09.11.2023, arguing that it extended beyond the scope of the original SCN. The SCN, issued on 20.10.2023, questioned a shortfall in Input Tax Credit (ITC) as reflected in the petitioner’s GSTR 2A, compared to their GSTR 3B returns, amounting to Rs.6,33,699/-. However, the impugned order confirmed a tax liability of Rs.9,34,236/-, which was significantly higher than the amount mentioned in the SCN. The petitioner’s counsel argued that comparing GSTR 2A and 3B for the financial year 2017-2018 was inappropriate since the GSTR 2A form had not been prescribed during that period. The counsel highlighted the procedural lapse, indicating that the final order imposed a liability beyond what was initially indicated in the SCN. In response, the learned Additional Government Pleader, C. Harsha Raj, acknowledged the notice for the respondent and conceded the disparity between the SCN and the impugned order. He agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the final order should be treated as an SCN, allowing the petitioner to respond appropriately. Upon reviewing the documents, the court concurred with the petitioner’s position. The judgment emphasized that the impugned order traveled beyond the scope of the SCN, rendering it procedurally unfair. Consequently, the court directed that the impugned order be treated as an SCN.

The Madras High Court’s decision in Tvl. Anandh Store Vs Commercial Tax Officer underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in tax adjudication. By setting aside the impugned order and directing it to be treated as an SCN, the court ensured that the petitioner would have a fair opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was granted three weeks to respond to the SCN, and the respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing before issuing a fresh order within three months. This ruling reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to maintain consistency between SCNs and final orders, safeguarding taxpayers’ rights.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031