Madras High Court
M/S.Manickam Company Firm vs The State Tax Officer on 18 September, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P(MD)No.21808 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2024
0CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P(MD)No.21808 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.18439 of 2024
M/s.Manickam Company Firm
Rep. By its Partner P.Prabhu
156, North Veli Street,
Madurai- 625 001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Tax Officer,
Inspection Cell-2,
O/o the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence,
Madurai-20. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in the
impugned order in Ref.No.ZD331223243511Z dated 28.12.2023 issued by the
respondent and quash the same is wholly without jurisdiction and clear
violation of statutory provisions.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.21808 of 2024
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the
respondent bearing Ref.No.ZD331223243511Z dated 28.12.2023, for the
Assessment year 2017-2018.
2. The impugned order is challenged on the premise that,
(a) the impugned order traverses beyond the show cause notice; and
(b) the impugned order has made without taking into account the
submissions made during the course of investigation and the payments made
already.
(c) Perusal of the impugned order would show that it is made on a gross
non-application of mind to the material facts on record as evident from the fact
that there is duplication of the liability under IGST. There has been levy of tax
on discount, labour charges and rent. The very same sum are once again subject
to tax under the head 'other income'.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
impugned order was passed on 18.12.2023 and the writ petition has been filed
much after the statutory period of limitation for filing the appeal is over.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already paid tax of
Rs.8,71,916/-, in addition to what is disclosed in the assessment order and his
only request is that the same may be adjusted towards the 25% of the disputed
tax, to which the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
does not have any serious objection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
of receipt of a copy of this order. The tax already paid by the petitioner in
addition to the tax what is disclosed in the assessment order shall be adjusted
towards the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. 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 not filed within the stipulated period,
i.e., two weeks and four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
respectively, the impugned order of assessment shall stand revived.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
PJL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The State Tax Officer,
Inspection Cell-2,
O/o the Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence,
Madurai-20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
PJL
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
