2024(07)LCX0272
Fazil Trader @ Farook
Versus
Deputy State Tax Officer/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
W.P. N o. 18428 of 2024 decided on 24-07-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P. N o.18428 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.20231 & 20232 of 2024
FAZIL TRADER @ FAROOK,
No. 3737, Medavakkam main road,
Kovilambakkam, Chennai – 600 117.
... Petitioner
-vs-
Deputy State Tax Officer/Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer,
Madipakkam Assessment Circle,
Room No.233, 2nd floor,
Integrated Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department Building,
Anna salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent herein in Impugned order in GSTIN - 33ABHPF5404F1Z8/2017-18 dated 26.12.2023 and the consequential DRC 07 passed in Ref.No.ZD3312232031628 dated 26.12.2023 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.G.Vardini Karthik
For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, AGP (T)
ORDER
By this writ petition, order in original dated 26.12.2023 is assailed on the ground that two parallel proceedings were initiated in respect of the same assessment period. The petitioner asserts that two parallel proceedings were initiated in respect of the same assessment period pursuant to scrutiny of returns. In view of the confusion entailed by the initiation of such proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one proceeding was initiated in respect of the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A, whereas a separate proceeding was initiated in respect of the mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and 3B returns. She contends that Section 73 uses the expression “order” and not “orders” and that this implies that only one order should be issued in respect of a specific assessment period. She also contends that the earlier proceeding may be sustainable but not the later.
3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that principles of natural justice were complied with by issuing intimation dated 07.09.2023, show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 and by issuing about three reminders.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal relating to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto-populated GSTR 2A was confirmed solely on the ground that the tax payer did not reply to the show cause notice. The admitted position is that a sum of Rs.3,17,300/- was appropriated from the petitioner's bank account. This amount represents more than 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of assessments forming the subject of this writ petition and W.P.No.18424 of 2024. In these circumstances, reconsideration is necessary.
5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by raising all contentions. Upon receipt of such reply, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.07.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
Deputy State Tax Officer/Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer,
Madipakkam Assessment Circle,
Room No.233, 2nd floor,
Integrated Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department Building,
Anna salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
W.P.No.18428 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.20231 & 20232 of 2024
24.07.2024