Madras High Court
Ilabz Technology Llp vs Deputy Commissioner (St) on 2 December, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.No.35392 of 2024
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.No.35392 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.38279 and 38280 of 2024
ILABZ Technology LLP,
Rep. by its partner Mr.Satheesh Kumar Jaggaih,
F 203, S and P Living Spaces,
Kamarajar Street,
Ayanambakkam, Chennai 600 095. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Deputy Commissioner (ST),
Vanagaram Integrated CT Building,
No.4/109, Chennai Bangalore Highways,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet,
Poonamallee 600 123.
2. Joint Commissioner (ST),
Vanagaram Integrated CT Building,
No.4/109, Chennai Bangalore Highways,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet,
Poonamallee 600 123.
3. Commercial Tax Officer,
Vanagaram Integrated CT Building,
No.4/109, Chennai Bangalore Highways,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet,
Poonamallee 600 123. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.35392 of 2024
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the
impugned order dated 12.04.2024 bearing ref. no.ZD3304240964666 for
financial year 2018-19 for GSTIN:33AAEF19320B2ZV issued under Section
73 of the TNGST Tax Act, 2017 by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct
the respondent to rectify the errors in the auto-populated data in form GSTR 9.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanakumaran
For Respondents : Ms.Amrita Dinakaran
Government Advocate
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 on the premise that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that GSTR 3B reflects the output tax liability which gets auto populated as GSTR 9 and whatever has been mentioned in GSTR 3B ought to have correspondingly got reflected in GSTR 9. However, while getting auto populated there were some discrepancies which was proposed to be treated as under declaration of outward supplies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 W.P.No.35392 of 2024
3. To the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that GSTR 9 even after being auto populated can always be rectified / revised. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that in any event the challenge to the impugned order by way of this writ petition is after the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeal. The issue that arises in the impugned order viz., under declaration of outward supplies on the basis of discrepancy in GSTR 09 and GSTR 3B is essentially a question of fact which must be explained by the petitioner. The petitioner having not even participated in any of the proceedings and having not been vigilant in challenging the impugned order it may not be open to the petitioner to now approach this Court seeking exercise of discretionary remedy under Article 226.
4. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in similar cases this Court in exercise of its discretion has directed the petitioner to 25% of the disputed taxes. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted that the above condition of 25% is onerous inasmuch as according to the petitioner the impugned order suffers from error apparent, thus even though they may not have been vigilant enough in responding to the notices nor filing an appeal within the stipulated period under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 W.P.No.35392 of 2024 the statute nevertheless would submit that this Court ought to exercise its discretion under Article 226.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate her submission that having not been vigilant this Court would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
6. This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is trite law that a petitioner invoking Article 32 or 226 should exercise due diligence and approach this Court without any delay after the cause of action arises.i Failure to be diligent and vigilant will disentitle a person from moving the High Court.ii Having not even responded to the notice nor having filed an appeal against the impugned order within the period stipulated under the GST Act it would ill lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim discretionary remedy under Article 226 as a matter of right. i. Moghe S.S. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1495; Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1970 SC 470; Union of India v. Kothiyal K.S., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 682 ; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2366.
ii. Srinivas K.R. v. R.M. Premchand, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 620 ; Foreshore Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Nivare Hakk Suraksha Samiti, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 75. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 W.P.No.35392 of 2024
7. In view thereof the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
spp
To:
1. Deputy Commissioner (ST),
Vanagaram Integrated CT Building,
No.4/109, Chennai Bangalore Highways,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet,
Poonamallee 600 123.
2. Joint Commissioner (ST),
Vanagaram Integrated CT Building,
No.4/109, Chennai Bangalore Highways,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet,
Poonamallee 600 123.
3. Commercial Tax Officer,
Vanagaram Integrated CT Building,
No.4/109, Chennai Bangalore Highways,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet,
Poonamallee 600 123.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
W.P.No.35392 of 2024
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
spp
W.P.No.35392 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.38279 and 38280 of 2024
02.12.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/6