GST Vidhi | GST Case Law

Summary Details: Tvl. R. Selvarathinam Vs.  The Deputy State Tax Officer - II, Villivakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai

Case Number: W.P.No.26893 of 2024

Date of Order: 11th September 2024

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Presiding Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

Summary of the Case:

The petitioner, Tvl. R. Selvarathinam, sought judicial intervention against an order issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act of 2017. The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed on 30th April 2024 under Sections 61, 73, and 50 of the TNGST Act and contested the recovery of taxes, interest, and penalties from their bank account. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order but claimed that recovery proceedings were initiated without waiting for the appeal to be decided.

Facts of the Case:

·        The respondent issued a show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) to the petitioner on 21st August 2023.

·        The petitioner filed responses on 12th April 2024, 26th April 2024, and 29th April 2024.

·        Despite the responses, the respondent issued an assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) on 30th April 2024, which included tax liability, interest, and penalties.

·        Recovery proceedings were initiated on 2nd August 2024, and a sum of Rs.5,35,346 was recovered from the petitioner’s bank account.

·        The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order on 28th August 2024, but the appeal was pending at the time of the writ petition.

Submissions by the Petitioner:

·        The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without properly considering their replies to the show cause notice.

·        Despite filing an appeal, the respondent initiated recovery proceedings, which they claimed was premature and unfair.

·        The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the assessment order and prevent further recovery actions until the appeal was decided.

Submissions by the Respondent:

·        The respondent, represented by Mr. C. Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader, justified the recovery proceedings, stating that, under the TNGST Act, recovery can begin if the assessed amount is not paid within three months of the service of the order.

·        The respondent noted that the petitioner's appeal did not preclude recovery actions.

Findings and Judgment of the Court:

·        The court noted that the petitioner had filed an appeal and that the respondent initiated recovery proceedings based on the assessment order.

·        The judge recognized the procedural correctness of the respondent's actions but acknowledged the pendency of the appeal.

·        The court ruled that the recovery proceedings should be deferred until the appeal is resolved.

Conclusion: The court allowed the petitioner to continue pursuing the appeal and directed the respondent to halt recovery proceedings until the appeal was adjudicated. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no costs awarded.

 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.