SAG Infotech Official Tax Blog Huge Discount for Tax Experts

Madras HC Cancels Order Against Assessee Who Was Unaware of Uploading SCN on the Portal

Madras HC's Order In the Case of Marson Industries Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

The Madras High Court in a recent ruling set aside the assessment order as the court noted that the impugned orders had been furnished without affording the applicant a hearing.

The applicant, Marson Industries claimed that he was not aware of the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders as the SCN and the assessment order were uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal and not communicated to the applicant via any other mode.

Quoting Form GSTR DRC-03 on 23.05.2023 & 30.03.2023, the counsel of the applicant shows that the interest obligations of Rs.88,028/- and Rs.3,05,551/- had been released by the applicant.

Similarly, it was highlighted that such amounts were readily available in the electronic credit ledger of the applicant. The applicant asked for fair consideration of the interest liability on its merits. The court on analyzing the provided documents conceded that the impugned orders had been issued without providing the applicant a hearing.

The applicant submitted the payment receipts totalling Rs.88,028/- and Rs.3,05,551/- respectively, demonstrating compliance with the obligations in question.

Read Also: Missing Reply to SCN Can’t Remove the Chances of Personal Hearing U/S 75(4)

A Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy of the Madras High Court, on careful consideration of the facts delivered, ruled in favour of the applicant. The impugned orders were set aside on 17.03.2023 and the cases were remanded to the respondent for reconsideration.

A duration of 15 days was allotted to the petitioner from the receipt of the court’s order to submit a response to SCNs. Following this, the respondent was mandated to afford the applicant a reasonable chance, including a personal hearing, before issuing fresh orders within a stipulated period of two months.

Without any financial load levied on the petitioner, the writ petitions were disposed of. Related miscellaneous petitions were too closed.

Case TitleMarson Industries Vs.Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
CitationW.P.Nos.7922 & 7941 of 2024
Date05.03.2024
Petitioner:Mr Adithya Reddy
Counsel For RespondentMr.T.N.C.Kaushik,
Additional Government Pleader (T)
Madras High CourtRead Order
Exit mobile version