IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
MADRAS
DATED:
25.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.7817
of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.8762 & 8765 of 2024
M/s.Vel
Steel Tubes and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
187/1A~5A,
Rep. by its Director D.Subbiah,
Thiruinravur
to Periyapalayam Road,
Pakkam
Village, Tiruvallur
Tamil
Nadu 602 024. ... Petitioner
~vs~
The
Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Thirumazhisali
Assessment Circle,
4/109,
2nd Floor,
Bangalore
~ Chennai Highway
Varadarajapuram,
Nazhrarthpet
Chennai
600 123. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records culminating into Order dated 09.10.2023 bearing GSTIN
33AACCV8374M1ZS/2019~20 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan, Sr. Adv.
for Mr.Adithya Reddy
For Respondent :
Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, GA (T)
**********
ORDER
1. An
assessment order dated 09.10.2023 is challenged on the ground that personal
hearing was not offered after receipt of the petitioner-s reply. In respect of assessment year 2019~20, the
petitioner received an intimation in Form GST DRC~01A on 22.12.2022. Such intimation was replied to by the
petitioner on 20.06.2023. After issuing
a show cause notice on 17.04.2023, the impugned assessment order was issued on
09.10.2023.
2. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioner relied on sub~section (4) of Section 75 of
the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and contended that a personal
hearing is mandatory either if requested for or if an order adverse to the
taxpayer is proposed to be issued. By
pointing out that no personal hearing was offered subsequent to the
petitioner-s reply on 20.06.2023, he contends that the assessment order is
vitiated for failure to comply with such mandatory requirement.
3. Mr.V.Prashanth
Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned assessment
order, he points out that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to
contest the tax demand in the form of intimation, show cause notice and the
personal hearing opportunities provided even after the issuance of the show
cause notice.
4. The
documents on record include the petitioner-s reply on 20.06.2023 and a
subsequent e~mail of 23.08.2023 along with the attachments thereto.. Such reply was referred to in the impugned
order and treated as a reply to the show cause notice. Although the petitioner is not blameless in
as much as much as the petitioner did not reply to the intimation within a
reasonable time or reply to the show cause notice, in view of breach of the
mandatory requirement of sub~section (4) of Section 75, the impugned order
calls for interference.
5. For
reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 09.10.2023 is quashed and the
matter is remanded for re~consideration.
The petitioner is permitted to submit any documents in support of the
reply within a maximum period of two weeks 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 or receipt of the petitioner-s reply.
6. W.P.No.7817
of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms.
No costs. Consequently,
W.M.P.Nos.8762 and 8765 of 2024 are 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.
