Public excerpt
WP(MD)/15720/2024 of Tvl. Mani Nadar Sekar Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) - Madras High Court (Madras High Court)
Court: Madras High Court (Madras High Court)
Case: HCMD010684072024
Parties: WP(MD)/15720/2024 of Tvl. Mani Nadar Sekar Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Pages: 7
Characters (full): 5363
Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.
W.P.(MD) No.15720 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.15720 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13695 & 13696 of 2024
Tvl.Mani Nadar Sekar,
Represented by Proprietor M.Sekar.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Tuticorin-III Assessment Circle,
Tuticorin.
... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned assessment
order on the file of the respondent vide GSTIN:33GBCPS6115P1Z7/2017-18
dated 28.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and direct
the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2017-18.
For petitioner
: Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan
For respondent
: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
*****
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.15720 of 2024
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated
28.06.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the
assessment
year 2017-18 bearing
reference in
GSTIN:
33GBCPS6115P1Z7/2017-18.
3. The impugned order has preceded the notices in DRC 01A dated
20.04.2023, DRC 01 dated 26.05.2023 and personal hearing notices dated
24.04.2023, 31.05.2023, 07.06.2023 and 14.06.2023. However, the petitioner
failed to reply the same stating that the petitioner was unaware of the same as the
notices were posted on the GST common portal.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner was also unaware of the passing of the
impugned order, as the same was posted in the GST common portal and not
received by the petitioner physically.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.15720 of 2024
5. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned
order only after the Department has initiated the recovery proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not
liable to pay the tax amount as detailed below:
Discrepancies
Noticed
Tax
Turnover
difference
CGST
SGST
CESS
245081.77
245081.77
1462180.00
7. It is submitted that the discrepancy is purely on account of the mismatch
between the information in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B. It is further submitted that the
tax liability is arisen during the initial years of after the implementation of the
GST with effect from 01.07.2017.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner will not in a position to explain the
discrepancy and one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to explain the
case.
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.15720 of 2024
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondent would submit that this Writ Petition is hopelessly time barred and
therefore, liable to be dismissed, on account of latches, in the light of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU,
Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440.
10. It is submitted that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms
of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and
submitted that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent,
the Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and
therefore, the discretion is exercised partly in favour of the petitioner by setting
aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass
4/7
htt
…