2025(03)LCX0269
Agni Estate Foundations Private Limited
Versus
The State Tax Officer
W.P.Nos. 9071 of 2025 decided on 19-03-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.Nos.9071, 9075 & 9080 of
2025
and W.M.P.Nos.10179, 10183 & 10188 of 2025
M/s.Agni Estate Foundations
Private Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director,
Mr.Santhoshkumar,
No.76, Third Floor, Temple Towers,
North Mada Street, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
.. Petitioner
in all W.Ps
Vs.
1.The State Tax Officer,
Group-II,
Chengalpattu Intelligence (Division),
No.870/2A, 1st Floor,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Thimmavaram,
Chengalpattu – 603 101.
2.The State Tax Officer, CIC,
Intelligence-II,
Room No.S 226, 2nd Floor,
No.1, PAPJM Buildings,
Greams Road, Thousand Lights,
Chennai – 600 006.
.. Respondent
in all W.Ps
Prayer in W.P.No.9071 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned DRC-07 order dated 29.01.2025, bearing Reference No.ZD330125277522L, passed by the 1 st respondent under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and quash the same and further direct the 1 st respondent to determine the tax demanded by deeming as if the the DRC-01 notice dated 24.07.2024 was issued under Section 73(1) of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with the provisions of 75(2) of TNGST/CGST Act.
Prayer in W.P.No.9075 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned DRC-07 order dated 29.01.2025, bearing Reference No.ZD330125277158E, passed by the 1 st respondent under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and quash the same and further direct the 1 st respondent to determine the tax demanded by deeming as if the the DRC-01 notice dated 30.07.2024 was issued under Section 73(1) of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with the provisions of 75(2) of TNGST/CGST Act.
Prayer in W.P.No.9080 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned DRC-07 order dated 29.01.2025, bearing Reference No.ZD3301252772520, passed by the 1st respondent under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and quash the same and further direct the 1 st respondent to determine the tax demanded by deeming as if the the DRC-01 notice dated 30.07.2024 was issued under Section 73(1) of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with the provisions of 75(2) of TNGST/CGST Act.
In all W.Ps
For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Special Government Pleader (Taxes)
COMMON ORDER
These Writ
petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment
orders in DRC-07 dated 29.01.2025, for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019
and 2019-2020 issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred as 'The Act').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
engaged in the business of real estate activities and is a registered assessee
under the Act. The books of accounts of the petitioner for the financial years
2017-18, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were subjected to inspection under Section 67
of the Act. Subsequent to such inspection, the petitioner was served with a show
cause notices dated 24.07.2024, 29.07.2024 and 30.07.2024 for the financial
years 2017-18, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 respectively, in Form GST DRC-01, under
Section 74 of the Act, for which, the petitioner field its replies requesting
the respondents to rectify Section 74 proceedings to Section 73 notice, as there
were no ingredients justifying invocation of Section 74 of the Act. Further, the
entire tax has been paid by the petitioner much prior to the inspection and the
same was duly declared in GSTR-9/9C. However, the 1st respondent has passed the
impugned assessment orders dated 29.01.2025 under Section 74 of the Act.
3. He would further submit that there is no allegation of suppression of facts,
misstatement or fraud with the intention to evade tax against the petitioner in
the show cause notices and therefore, none of the ingredients are satisfied to
invoke Section 74 of the Act. The 1st respondent without application of mind has
passed an order under section 74 of the Act. The petitioner is entitled to seek
the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme introduced vide Section 128A CGST/TNGST Act,
2017, which provides for waiver of interest and penalty in certain cases where
tax has been paid in full before a notified date. Since the 1st respondent has
passed the impugned order under Section 74 of the Act, it deprives the
petitioner's right to claim the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Hence, he prayed
to set aside the impugned order.
4. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents after getting a written instruction from the respondents would
fairly submit that in the present case, show cause notices were issued under
Section 74 of the Act and the petitioner filed its reply stating that the
ingredient of Section 74 of the Act is not fulfilled and further the petitioner
has paid the entire tax and requested the respondents to rectify Section 74
proceedings to Section 73 notice. However, the respondents have no power and
jurisdiction to reclassify the proceedings under Section 73 instead of Section
74 of the Act. Under such circumstance, he would fairly submit that if the Court
feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for re-consideration, this Court may
consider and pass orders so that, the petitioner can avail the benefit of
Amnesty Scheme.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials
available on records.
6. Upon hearing the above submissions, it is evident that the show cause notices
were issued under Section 74 of the Act. A perusal of the notice, it appears
that no aspect of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or fraud has been
stated in the show cause notices to fulfil the ingredient of Section 74 of the
Act and therefore, the same is not sustainable under the Provision of Section 74
of the Act. However, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the impugned orders were
passed under Section 74 of the Act, it deprives the petitioner's right in
availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme. Therefore, as suggested by the
learned Special Government Pleader, it would be proper to say that the notice
issued under Section 74 of the Act shall be deemed as notice under Section 73 of
the Act so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefits under the Amnesty
Scheme. Accordingly, the notices and the impugned orders passed under Section 74
of the Act shall be deemed as the notices and orders passed under Section 73 of
the Act.
7.With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. There is no
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
19.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speakingn Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To:
1.The State Tax Officer,
Group-II,
Chengalpattu Intelligence (Division),
No.870/2A, 1st Floor,
Kancheepuram High Road,
Thimmavaram,
Chengalpattu – 603 101.
2.The State Tax Officer, CIC,
Intelligence-II,
Room No.S 226, 2nd Floor,
No.1, PAPJM Buildings,
Greams Road, Thousand Lights,
Chennai – 600 006.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
W.P.Nos.9071, 9075 & 9080 of
2025
and W.M.P.Nos.10179, 10183 & 10188 of 2025
19.03.2025