Case Law Details
Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Baisany Ramiah Chetty Pandurangan vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), the petitioner challenged an order dated 18.12.2023 primarily on the grounds of not being provided with a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner, engaged in providing goods transport services, stated that the services fell within the scope of the reverse charge mechanism.
The petitioner responded to a notice dated 03.07.2023 by stating that the difference between their GSTR 3B and Form 26AS resulted from providing services subject to GST on a reverse charge basis. However, the impugned order was issued on 18.12.2023 without calling for the documents referred to in paragraph 11 of the order. The petitioner expressed willingness to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondent, referred to the petitioner’s affidavit, which stated that the petitioner could not avail of a personal hearing due to viral fever. On the merits, it was argued that the petitioner had to establish that the services provided fell within the scope of relevant GST enactments.
Upon review, it was found that the petitioner’s reply included only GSTR 9, GSTR 9C, and income tax documents, without providing all relevant documents to establish the services’ categorization under Section 9(3) of GST enactments read with Notification No.13/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. However, the petitioner asserted that the services fell within the mentioned provision and notification. It was contended that documents establishing the transport of goods, including consignment notes, were available with the petitioner.
Considering these circumstances, it was deemed just and necessary to provide the petitioner with an opportunity by putting them on terms. The impugned order was set aside subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. Within this period, the petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice along with additional documents. Upon receipt of the reply and satisfaction of the remittance, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receiving additional documents.
Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with no costs awarded. The related miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 18.12.2023 is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner asserts that he is engaged in the business of providing goods transport services. Consequently, it is stated that the services provided by the petitioner fall within the scope of the reverse charge mechanism. Upon receipt of notice in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 03.07.2023, the petitioner replied on 12.09.2023 by uploading such reply on the portal on 19.09.2023. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 18.12.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the notice dated 03.07.2023 and pointed out that the petitioner responded to such notice by stating that the difference between the petitioner’s GSTR 3B and Form 26AS is a result of the petitioner providing services that are charged to GST on reverse charge basis. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel points out that the respondent did not call for the documents referred to in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. If such documents had been called for, he submits that the petitioner would have submitted the same. On instructions, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
3. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the affidavit of the petitioner, he submits that the case of the petitioner is that he could not avail of the personal hearing since he was suffering from viral fever. On the merits, he submits that the petitioner was under the obligation to establish that the services provided by him fall within
4. On perusal of the petitioner’s reply, it is evident that the only documents enclosed with such reply are the GSTR 9, GSTR 9C and income tax documents. As contended by learned Additional Government Pleader, it was incumbent on the petitioner to provide all relevant documents to establish that the services fall within the scope of Section 9(3) of applicable GST enactments read with Notification No.13/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Nonetheless, in the reply, the petitioner has asserted categorically that the services provided by him fall within the scope of the above provision and notification. Learned counsel also contends that the documents establishing transport of goods, including corresponding consignment notes, are available with the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms.
5. For reasons set out above, impugned order dated 18.12.2023 is set aside subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice along with additional documents. Upon receipt of such reply and upon being satisfied that 10% of the disputed tax demand was received, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within three months from the date of additional documents from the petitioner.
6. W. P.No.11010 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.12092 and 12093 of 2024 are closed.
Author Bio
