Latta Super Market v. The Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P.Nos.38960 and 38959 of 2024 Latta Super Market, Represented by its Partner, Paulraj Dhinakaran, No.6, 6, Dhandeeswaran Main Road, Chennai 600 042.
... Petitioner Vs.
State Tax Officer, Velachery Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Room No.234, The Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, (South Tower), Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in his GSTIN:33AABFL6568K1Z1 /2019-20 dated 30.08.2024 to quash the same with the direction to conduct and record cross examination along with their objections dated 19.08.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader.
1/8
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent relating to the assessment year 2019-20.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the retail business of tricycles, scooters, pedal cars, similar wheeled toys, soaps, cooker and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the relevant period viz., 2019-20, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate taxes. However, as per the authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai South Division, an audit was conducted at the petitioner's place of business by the Assistant Commissioner. On verification of the petitioner's books of account, the following discrepancies were noticed viz., inter alia including the excess claim of ITC and under declaration of ineligible ITC in terms of Section 17(5) of the SGST Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an intimation in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 31.05.2024, followed by reminders on 01.07.2024, 16.07.2024 and 05.08.2024. Further, personal hearing was offered on 30.07.2024. The petitioner had filed its reply to the Show Cause 2/8
Notice on 19.08.2024. It is submitted that there were no other issues and the same were not being adjudicated. The petitioner, in response to the excess claim of ITC which is only in view of the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, had along with its reply filed a declaration from supplier, which was also furnished to the respondent authority. The respondent authority had thereafter apparently conducted an enquiry with the alleged supplier of the petitioner who had disowned the issuance of such a certificate.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they were not put on notice on this aspect. It is the case of the petitioner that if the declaration form were to be rejected on the basis of any enquiry, the same ought to have been informed to the petitioner to enable them to meet the case, and if needed, they could have requested an opportunity for cross-examination. However, the impugned order has been passed without the petitioner being informed of the above aspect. In that view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is made in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Insofar as the ineligible ITC is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they had filed their reply. However, the impugned 3/8
order proceeds on the basis that no reply has been filed as would be evident from the following portion of the impugned order:
4/8
6. In light of the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from vice of non-application of mind to the material of record and also in violation of principles of natural justice as the reasons which weighed in the mind of the assessing authority while passing the order of adjudication have not been disclosed.
7. When the above defects in the order of assessment were pointed out, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they would redo the assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
8. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 is set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to treat the impugned order as a Show Cause Notice. The petitioner is directed to file its objection within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall thereafter redo the assessment after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
5/8
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.11.2024 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No shk 6/8
To:
State Tax Officer, Velachery Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Room No.234, The Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, (South Tower), Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
7/8
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
shk and W.M.P.Nos.38960 and 38959 of 2024 27.11.2024 8/8