Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 73

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226

Determination of tax--Non-speaking order--Validity of

Conclusion: Where assessment order passed by the revenue authority was non-speaking order and did not consider the reply filed by the assessee, the said order was liable to be set aside.

Assessee challenged the order passed by the revenue authority under section 73(1) of the TNGST/CGST Act, wherein, it was alleged that the assessee had availed/claimed excess Input Tax Credit for the relevant assessment year. Revenue argued that writ petition filed by the assessee was without any merits and the same was beyond the period of limitation. Held: The order passed by the revenue authority was non-speaking order. It did not consider the reply filed by the assessee. Further, the impugned order was without any proper reasoning, hence, the same was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.

Decision: In favour of assessee by way of remand

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

C. SARAVANAN

Sri Rahaventher Industries v. UOI

W.P. (MD) No. 8566 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 7800 and 7804 of 2024

15 April, 2024

Petitioner by: A. Chandrasekaran

Respondents by: M. Ashok Kumar, Central Government Senior Standing Counsel for R1 and 2, R. Suresh Kumar, AGP for R3 to 5

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30-12-2023 bearing Ref. No.ZD33122382708B passed for the assessment year for the tax period between July 2017 to March 2018 being the first year after the implementation of the demand.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner had replied to the show cause notice dated 4-8-2023 and to notice in DRC-01 dated 16-9-2023 on 01-11-2023. However, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned order The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

Tax period (JULY 2017-MARCH 2018) Financial Year - 2017- 2018

Sir,

Tvl. SRI RAHAVENTHER INDUSTRIES, doing business at 2/862, AR NAGAR EXTENTION, KADACHANENDAL, KADAKINARU, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, 625107 is a registered person under TNGST Act, 2017, under the Jurisdiction of this office. On scrutiny of the returns for the year 2017-2018 reveals that there was mismatch in GSTR3B vs GSTR2B/2A are noted below:

Mismatch in availing of Input and GSTR-3B return and GSTR-2B/2A:

On verification of Input Tax Credit availed in Form GSTR-3B returns with Form GSTR-2B/2A for the assessment year 2017-2018, it was noticed that you have availed/claimed excess Input Tax Credit to an extent of Rs. 393611-(CGST),Rs.393611 (SGST) and Rs. 601204 (IGST) thereby reduced the output tax payment as detailed below:

The same reference was informed to you through as per the reference cited. On receipt of the ASMT-10 notice, You have neither filed any objections nor have paid the tax due along with the corresponding Interest amount. Hence it is construed that, you have no objection to the above proposal. Therefore Demand and Recovery action has been initiated under section 73(1) of the TNGST Act/CGST Act 2017 as below:

It is further submitted that the demand has been confirmed during the statutory period of limitation under section 73(9) and 10 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and therefore is liable to be quashed.

3. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the challenge to the impugned order in this Writ Petition is without any merits. It is further submitted that Writ Petition is beyond the period of limitation and therefore in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440. He submits that the petitioner has not replied and therefore the impugned order is not liable to be quashed.

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is noticed that the impugned order is not a speaking order. It has also not considered the reply filed by the petitioner on 1-11-2023 which has been referred to in Item No.3 in the reference column to the impugned order.

5. As the impugned order is without proper reasoning, it is liable to be set aside and remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.