← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21999/2024disposed of

Mr.R.Rajendran v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

2024-08-12Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.08.2024 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy and W.M.P.Nos.23978, 23979 & 23981 of 2024 R.Rajendran, Prop: KVR Agro, No.3/326-A, Bharathi Nagar, Naal Round, Gudimangalam, Tirupur-642 201.

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Udumalpet (North) Circle, Tirupur.

... Respondent Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Respondent relating to the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 proceedings in GSTIN:33AHFPR0490M1Z3/2017-18 along with consequential order in DRC07 with Ref No.ZD331223290981D dated 31.12.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.James Victor Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.J.N.C.Kaushik Additional Government Pleader (Tax) 1/6

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 proceedings in GSTIN:33AHFPR0490M1Z3/2017-18 along with consequential order in DRC07 with Ref No.ZD331223290981D, dated 31.12.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

2. Mr.J.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Alleging that there is a ITC differences noticed between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B Form filed by the petitioner for the financial year 2017-2018, the respondent has issued DRC-01 dated 30.09.2023, after a lapse of five years from the relevant financial year, and also the respondent sent a reminder to the petitioner on 09.12.2023. However, the petitioner was not aware of the communications sent through GST common portal, since it was handled by his 2/6

tax consultant. As the said show cause notice was not noticed by the petitioner, the petitioner failed to respond to the same. Therefore, the respondent passed an impugned order dated 30.12.2023. Purusant to the impugned order, the petitioner-company Bank account has been freezed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if an opportunity is provided and the petitioner would be able to substantiate his case and also he agrees to make a payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that subject to the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand by the petitioner in respect of the impugned assessment period, this Court can consider and pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3/6

8. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned show cause notice was issued through the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order came to be passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.

9. For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The order impugned herein is set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4/6

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

(iii) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the Bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is lifted. The respondent is directed to instruct the Bank to unfreeze the Bank account of the petitioner immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.

(iv) 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.

10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

12.08.2024 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No jd 5/6

Krishnan Ramasamy,J., jd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Udumalpet (North) Circle, Tirupur.

12.08.2024 6/6