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

…