Madras High Court
Mr.Rajkumar vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 12 August, 2024
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.No.21253 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.21253 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.23209 & 23212 of 2024
Mr.Rajkumar,
Proprietor,
Tvl.J.R.V.Ventures,
412, 8th Cross MGR Street,
Saraswathi Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal,
Tiruvallur 600 062.
... Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Thirumullaivoyal Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex,
D.No.32, Room No.114,
Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Chennai 600 003.
... Respondent
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order bearing Ref.No.ZD331223075720Q dated 12.12.2023
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21253 of 2024
passed by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner used to receive advance and supply the products. Under these circumstances, the GST came into force with effect from 01.07.2017 and hence, the petitioner discharged their GST on the supplies made by them from 01.07.2017 for the financial year April 2017 to March 2018. At this juncture, the show cause notice was issued by the respondent stating that 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21253 of 2024 there was a difference between the tax supplies reported in Form GSTR 3B as against the Form 26AS for the period of July 2017 to March 2018. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has filed a reply stating that the aforesaid difference has occurred since the turnover reported in Form 26AS includes the turn over for the period April 2017 to June 2017, which was prior to the introduction of GST. Thereafter, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted by the respondent, however, since the Accountant of the petitioner had resigned from services, the petitioner was not in a position to appear before the respondent for personal hearing. Thereafter, without even considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case before the respondent.
4. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that though the respondent had granted an 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21253 of 2024 opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner has failed to avail the said opportunity. Hence, he would submit that in the event of setting aside of the impugned order, this Court may direct the petitioner to pay 10% of the demand amount and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, a notice was issued by the respondent based on the difference between the turn over reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B, for which the petitioner filed a reply stating that the said difference has occurred since the Form 26AS includes the turn over of three months, viz., April 2017 to June 2017, which is prior to the commencement of GST Regime, whereas, the turnover reported in Form GSTR3B will not include the said period. However, the said aspect was not considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order. Therefore, this Court believes that if one more opportunity is granted, the petitioner can establish his case before the Authorities concerned. In such 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21253 of 2024 view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2023. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 12.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of demand amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today (12.08.2024) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice by fixing the date of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21253 of 2024
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12.08.2024 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa To Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thirumullaivoyal Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex, D.No.32, Room No.114, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai 600 003.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21253 of 2024 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa W.P.No.21253 of 2024 & W.M.P.Nos.23209 & 23212 of 2024 12.08.2024 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis