Kerala High Court
Falcon Synergy Engineering Private ... vs Assistant State Tax Officer on 4 March, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:17971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8377 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FALCON SYNERGY ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
PULICHOTTIL, 153, ARAKUNNAM,
EDAKKATTUVAYAL, MULAMTHURUTHY,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA
(REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.THANKACHAN K.V, RESIDING AT KAVUMKATTAYIL
HOUSE, MULAKULAM NORTH, PIRAVOM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686664
BY ADVS.
K.N.SREEKUMARAN
P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768)
LIJO VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER
TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE STATE GOODS & SERVICES
TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION,
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682301
2 STATE TAX OFFICER
TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE STATE GOODS & SERVICES
TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION,
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682301
3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE STATE GOODS & SERVICES
TAX DEPARTMENT, TRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
2025:KER:17971
W.P.(C). No.8377 of 2025
-:2:-
BY ADV. JASMIN M.M.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:17971
W.P.(C). No.8377 of 2025
-:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.8377 of 2025
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P7 order dated 08.08.2024 issued
under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Kerala
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. In the proceedings related to the financial year 2019-20,
noticing that there was excess input tax availed by the petitioner for
the said year, a show cause notice was issued on 16.05.2024.
However, there was no response from the petitioner's side, and
thereafter, a reminder notice was issued on 24.06.2024, and again on
04.07.2024, and yet again on 22.07.2024. On all those occasions,
petitioner failed to respond and did not avail the opportunity granted
for a personal hearing. Thereafter, the State Tax Officer issued the
impugned order.
3. Subsequently, petitioner claims to have filed a rectification
petition on 29.01.2025, which was not apparently accepted by the
authority. Petitioner challenges the impugned order of determination of
tax, contending that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing
and also that the excess input tax availment arose out of a clerical
2025:KER:17971
mistake, and if properly appreciated, no liability would arise. Petitioner
asserts that the clerical mistake committed by its staff has resulted in
the huge liability imposed upon it.
4. I have heard Sri. K. N. Sreekumaran, the learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as Smt. Jasmin M. M., the learned Government
Pleader.
5. On a perusal of the impugned order Exhibit-P7, it is evident
that petitioner was given opportunities to respond in the form of a
show cause notice followed by three reminders. Petitioner is a business
establishment carrying on regular business activities. The show cause
notice issued in 2024, even if it be only in the portal, is a mode of notice
prescribed the statute. As a private limited company, petitioner cannot
feign ignorance of such a notice or the reminder notices which were
issued over a period of three months. In such circumstances, it cannot
be stated that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing.
6. Failure to avail the opportunity granted is different from
failure to grant an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, petitioner
cannot agitate that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing. If the
opportunity was not availed by the petitioner, it is due to its own
default. The blame cannot be put upon the respondents. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the remedy
2025:KER:17971
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, I dismiss this writ petition, reserving the liberty of
the petitioner to prefer statutory remedies, if available, in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
Jka/04.03.25.
2025:KER:17971
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8377/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARTERLY RETURN IN
FORM GSTR 1 FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER
TO DECEMBER 2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
ON 27.1.2020.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY RETURN IN FORM
GSTR 3B FOR NOVEMBER 2019FILED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 17.1.2020.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY REPLY RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER THROUGH MAIL FROM GST
GRIEVANCE CELL ON 14.12.2019
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNS IN FORM GSTR 3B
FOR DECEMBER 2019 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN IN FORM GSTR 3B
FOR JANUARY 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN
FORM GSTR DRC 01 DATED 16.5.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THEASSESSMENT ORDER AND
SUMMARY OF ORDER IN DRC-07 UNDER
REFERENCE NO.OIO/TPS/EKM/CTPTR/2024/207/
ASTO DATED 8.8.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE RECONCILIATION
STATEMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LALITH
ELECTRICALS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
2025:KER:17971
REPORTED IN (2024) SUPREME ONLINE (MAD)
17070
Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
29.1.2025 PRESENTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
