![]()
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.03.2024
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.7117 of 2024 and
W.M.P.Nos.7817 & 7820 of 2024
M/s.Vimal Traders,
Rep. by its authorised
signatory,
#36/108, Lingappa Chetty
Street,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
641 001. ... Petitioner
~vs~
The Assistant
Commissioner (State Tax),
R.G.Street, Coimbatore I,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the
records of the Impugned order in Ref. No. ZD3309232592544 dated 30.09.2023 u/s
73 of the CGST / TNGST Act, 2017 for the assessment period 2018~2019
uploaded along with the summary of the order in DRC~07 from the files
of the respondent herein, quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Ms.Aparna Nandakumar
For Respondent
: Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, AGP (T)
**********
ORDER
1.
An assessment order dated 30.09.2023 is
challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the
petitioner-s reply and documents annexed thereto were not taken into
consideration. The petitioner is a
registered person under applicable GST enactments. During the assessment period
2018~2019, the petitioner had issued six invoices. While uploading the e~way bills
pertaining to above mentioned supplies, the petitioner asserts that an error
was committed by entering the same invoice number in multiple e~way
bills. In relation thereto, a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.05.2023 and such show cause notice
was replied to on 28.08.2023 by explaining the mistake committed and attaching
bill copies. Eventually, the impugned
order dated 30.09.2023 was issued.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to the reply dated 28.08.2023 and pointed out that the inadvertent
error was explained by enclosing the relevant bill copies. By turning to the impugned order, learned counsel
points out that the petitioner-s reply was not discussed therein and no
reasons were set out for rejecting the said reply. Therefore, it is submitted that the
petitioner should be provided another opportunity to persuade the assessing
officer. It is further submitted that
there was no suppression of sales.
3.
Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional
Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the petitioner had submitted
bills, which did not contain the GST registration number. He further submits that the dispute relates
to questions of fact and, therefore, should be addressed in appellate
proceedings.
4.
From the petitioner-s reply dated
28.08.2023, it appears that the petitioner conceded that an inadvertent error
was made by including the same invoice number under multiple e~way
bills. The petitioner also attached the
relevant bill copies with such reply.
The findings recorded in the impugned order, in the operative portion
thereof, are as under:
5.
The taxpayer generated two E way bills for
the same invoice hence the taxpayer suppressed the turnover in GSTR3B hence an
intimation notice DRC~01A has been issued electronically on
13.07.2022. The taxpayer would have
received the notice in SMS and through mail.
But the taxpayer did not produce any reply. DRC~01 has been electronically on
10.05.2023. The taxpayer would have
received the notice in SMS and through mail.
The taxpayer not replied.
Personal hearing opportunities were offered to the taxpayer for filing
their reply along with supportive documents on 23.08.2023 at 11:15 AM, and
25.09.2023 at 11:45 AM through online Goods and Service tax common portal. The taxpayer would have received the notice
in SMS and through mail. But the
taxpayer have not appeared before the proper officer and failed to utilize the
opportunity and not filed any reply t the Show cause notice issued. The taxpayer have not paid the penalty. The taxpayer filed reply for the second
personal hearing through on line without documentary evidence the taxpayer
reply not accepted. Hence, the above
proposal is confirmed and orders passed under section 74 of TNGST / CGST Acts
2017 as below;“
6.
The above extract discloses that the reply
of the petitioner was noticed, but the reasons for rejecting such reply and, in
particular, the documents annexed thereto, do not find place in the impugned
order. For such reason, the impugned
order calls for interference.
7.
Therefore, the impugned order dated
30.09.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for
re~consideration. The
petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice by enclosing
all relevant documents within a maximum period of fifteen days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Upon
receipt thereof, the assessing officer is directed to provide a reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter
issue a fresh assessment order within two months from the date of receipt of
the petitioner-s reply.
8.
W.P.No.7117 of 2024 is disposed of on the
above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.7969 of 2024 is
closed.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
