Sunshine International Agri Tech Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 13.12.2023 and 14.11.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The assessment proceedings arose from a show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 issued after several discrepancies were noticed by the authorities.
According to the respondents, the petitioner sought time to file a reply through Form DRC-06 and was granted three opportunities for personal hearing. However, no reply was filed within the stipulated time, and the petitioner again sought time on 27.02.2024. Consequently, the assessment order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to explain the discrepancies. The proposed demands were confirmed, requiring payment of IGST of Rs.73,352, CGST of Rs.8,08,521, and SGST of Rs.8,08,521. Although a suo motu rectification was later carried out, the liability remained.
The petitioner contended that a detailed reply had been filed on 21.03.2024, before the assessment order was passed, but the same was not considered. The respondents disputed this claim, pointing out the absence of acknowledgment or proof of filing.
The High Court observed that, even assuming there was no proof of filing the reply, the assessment order had been passed ex parte. Considering the petitioner’s submissions on the discrepancies and the contention that more than Rs.34 lakh had already been recovered from the petitioner’s account, the Court held that one more opportunity should be granted.
