Madras High Court
M/S.T.V.L.Thangam Builders vs The Deputy Commissioner (St) (Gst) ... on 17 October, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.(MD)No.24352 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD)No.24352 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.20678 of 2024
M/s.T.V.L.Thangam Builders,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Dharmaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Appeal),
Erode & Salem,
Integrated New Commercial Taxes Building,
IIIrd Floor, S.F.No.400/1, 7, 8, 46, Pudur B Village,
Erode – 638 002.
2.The Deputy State Tax Officer-I,
Kulithalai Assessment Circle,
Kulithalai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file
of the second respondent in GSTIN.33AAFFT6786K1ZL/2019-2020 dated
14.02.2024 and quash the same as unconstitutional and with a further direction
directing the first respondent to take the appeal in ROC.No.2831/2024/A1 dated
27.08.2024 by condoning 22 days of delay in filing the appeal filed by the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.24352 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivaram
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
14.02.2024, whereby the claim of Input Tax Credit was sought to be rejected on
the premise that discrepancy was noticed between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is the Managing Partner of Thangam Builders, registered under GST
Act. The petitioner filed its returns and also paid appropriate taxes. It was
submitted that a notice in Form DRC-1A and DRC-01 was issued to the
petitioner through web portal. However, the petitioner was unaware of the
notices in the portal and he has not responded to the same. In view thereof, the
impugned order was made confirming the proposal. As against the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. However, the same
was not entertained as it was beyond the stipulated period of limitation. In such
circumstances, the Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The limited issue that arises for consideration in the impugned order is
the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. It is submitted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an
opportunity, he would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies between
GSTR-3B and GSTR-7.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the
recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables
vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.
(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the
introduction of GST, there were several technical glitches in the portal and the
assessees were also taking time to adapt to the e-mechanism and it was only in
view of the same that the petitioner was unable to respond to the above notices
and the order of adjudication. It was further submitted that that the petitioner is
ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one
final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections
to the proposal, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
6. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall
deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the
impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the
petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting
documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be
considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law
after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the above
deposit is not paid or the objections are not filed within the stipulated period,
i.e., two weeks and four weeks respectively, from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived. It is made
clear that any payment made subsequent to the order of assessment shall be
adjusted while reckoning the deposit of 25% of the disputed taxes.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Appeal),
Erode & Salem,
Integrated New Commercial Taxes Building,
IIIrd Floor, S.F.No.400/1, 7, 8, 46, Pudur B Village,
Erode – 638 002.
2.The Deputy State Tax Officer-I,
Kulithalai Assessment Circle,
Kulithalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Nsr
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
