Case Law Details
Amici Design Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In the case of Amici Design Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer before the Madras High Court, the petitioner, Amici Design Private Limited, contested an order dated July 19, 2023. The primary grievances were that payments made by the petitioner towards tax and interest were not considered, and a reasonable opportunity for representation was not provided.
Background of the Case
Amici Design Private Limited filed their returns, following which they received a notice in Form ASMT 10 from the tax authorities on March 11, 2023. In response, on April 26, 2023, the petitioner agreed to reverse Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.66,920/- each towards Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST). Subsequently, on May 22, 2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner did not respond.
Arguments and Proceedings
The petitioner’s counsel presented the reply to the ASMT 10 notice and the payment receipt for the tax and interest. Additionally, it was highlighted that the Form GST DRC-03, acknowledging the payment, was uploaded on July 19, 2023, the same day the impugned order was passed. The Government Advocate, Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, acknowledged the delay in uploading Form GST DRC-03 but argued that the petitioner had not fully discharged their tax liability.
Court’s Findings and Decision
Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the respondent had not considered the payment made by the petitioner, as evidenced by a payment receipt dated May 6, 2023. This oversight necessitated a reconsideration of the impugned order.
Order and Directions
The court set aside the impugned order dated July 19, 2023, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. It directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from receiving the court’s order. Following this, the respondent was instructed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and then issue a fresh order within three months from receiving the petitioner’s reply.
The writ petition was disposed of under these terms, and no costs were ordered. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and ensuring that all relevant payments and documents are considered before issuing an order. The court’s decision to set aside the original order and remit the matter for reconsideration highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring due process and the right to a fair hearing. The directives for a fresh evaluation, including a personal hearing, aim to rectify the oversight and ensure a just resolution in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order in original dated 19.07.2023 is assailed on the ground that amounts paid by the petitioner towards tax and interest were not taken into consideration and on the ground that a reasonable opportunity was not provided.
2. Upon perusal of returns filed by the petitioner, a notice in Form ASMT 10 was issued to the petitioner on 11.03.2023. By reply dated 26.04.2023, the petitioner agreed to reverse Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the extent of Rs.66,920/- each towards CGST and SGST. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not reply thereto. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply to the notice in Form ASMT 10 and to the payment receipt in respect of payment of tax along with interest. She also pointed out that Form GST DRC-03 in respect of such payment was subsequently uploaded on 19.07.2023.
4. Mrs .K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts on behalf of the respondent. She points out that the petitioner did not upload Form GST DRC-03 until after the impugned order was issued. She further submits that the entire tax liability was not discharged by the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondent did not take into consideration the payment made by the petitioner under payment receipt dated 06.05.2023. Consequently, the impugned order requires reconsideration.
6. For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, 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 receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
