Case Law Details
Tvl. Sri Sakthi Steel Vs Deputy State Tax (Madras High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed the grievance raised by Tvl. Sri Sakthi Steel regarding an order dated 28.02.2023. The core contention was the failure to consider the petitioner’s GST Annual Return for the assessment period 2018-19, filed in Form GSTR 9. This oversight led to the imposition of late fees and penalties against the petitioner.
The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that despite filing the annual return on 30.09.2020, the impugned order erroneously stated non-filing. This discrepancy arose as the petitioner claimed igno-rance of proceedings initiated through a show cause notice uploaded solely on the GST portal. The court acknowledged this procedural lapse and emphasized the necessity of communication beyond portal up-loads for effective notice.
Government Advocate Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, appearing for the respondents, acknowledged the procedural timeline but defended the impugned order’s validity based on prior notices and hearings. However, the court found merit in the petitioner’s submission, highlighting the crucial date of filing and uploading of Form GSTR 9 as evidence.
Consequently, the Madras HC set aside the impugned order, directing re-adjudication. The court man-dated the first respondent to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within three months. The relief extended to lifting the bank attachment imposed under the impugned order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 28.02.2023 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the annual return filed by the petitioner for assessment period 2018-19 was not taken into consideration.
2. By issuing show cause notice dated 13.12.2022, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Such proceedings culminated in impugned order dated 28.02.2023. By asserting that the petitioner was unaware about these proceedings because the show cause notice and impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal but not communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the annual return in Form GSTR 9 and pointed out that such return was filed on 30.09.2020 with regard to assessment period 2018-19. Therefore, he points out that in spite of filing this return, it was recorded in the impugned order that the annual return had not been filed.
4. Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. She points out that the impugned order was preceded by intimation dated 08.11.2022, show cause notice dated 13.12.2022 and personal hearing notice dated 27.12.2022.
5. The petitioner has placed on record the annual return in Form GSTR 9. The return specifies the date as 30.09.2020. The return appears to have been uploaded on the same date. By the impugned order, late fee and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner for failure to file the annual return for 2018-19. Since such order was issued without taking into account the annual return filed on 30.09.2020, reconsideration is necessary.
6. For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The first 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 a copy of this order. In view of the impugned order being set aside, the bank attach-ment is raised.
7. Therefore, W.P.No.15179 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Author Bio
