GST 1

W.P.No.
10413 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.10413 of 2024 and

W.M.P.Nos.11407 & 11408 of 2024
Tvl. Kavinkumar Textiles,

No.133/7, Ganapathi nagar,
Erode, Tamil Nadu-638 001,
Represented by its Proprietor Marasesan Veerasamy ...Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy State Tax Officer-I,

O/o The Assistant Commissioner,
Thindal Assessment Circle,
Erode. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the
respondent in its impugned proceedings made in
GSTIN:33AFXPM7611R1ZJ/2017-2018 dated 29.09.2023 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar

for Ms.R.Hemalatha
For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik,
Additional Government Pleader (T)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.10413 of 2024
ORDER
An order dated 29.09.2023 is challenged in this writ petition.
Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to an
inspection. An intimation dated 14.02.2023 was issued and the petitioner
replied thereto on 13.03.2023. This was followed by a show cause notice
dated 17.03.2023. The petitioner replied thereto on 23.09.2023. The
impugned order came to be issued thereafter on 29.09.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned
order and pointed out that except for two issues, proceedings were
dropped in relation to other issues. The first issue he focused on was
difference in turnover declared in GSTR 3B on comparison with the
GSTR 1 statement. On this issue, he pointed out that the petitioner paid
the tax dues by way of a debit from the electronic credit ledger of the
petitioner on 09.01.2023. He pointed out that this was even prior to the
issuance of the intimation dated 14.02.2023. In these circumstances,
learned counsel submits that the imposition of 100% penalty warrants
reconsideration. He also points out that the respondent recorded the
finding that the petitioner had only replied with regard to the tax and not
with regard to penalty. The second issue that learned counsel focused on
2/6
W.P.No.10413 of 2024
was the reversal of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in respect of
purchases from Sri Vela Hardware and Paints. Learned counsel pointed
out that the petitioner had purchased GI pipes from the supplier and used
the same for machinery repairs and maintenance purposes only. In spite
of enclosing details of purchases made along with reply dated
23.09.2023, learned counsel submits that it was concluded in the
impugned order that the petitioner had purchased paint for the building.
3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader,
accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned order, he
contends that the petitioner discharged liability to the extent of
Rs.42,726/-, but failed to discharge liability of Rs.20,232/- each towards
CGST and SGST. He submits that penalty was imposed in the said facts
and circumstances.
4. On examining the impugned order, it is noticeable that the
respondent recognised the fact that the petitioner paid amounts due with
regard to the difference between GSTR 1 and 3B on 09.01.2023. In spite
of noticing the same, the respondent recorded at page no.23 of the typed
set that the taxable person did not pay the tax dues within 15 days of the
3/6
W.P.No.10413 of 2024
receipt of the notice dated 17.03.2023. This conclusion is contrary to the
documents on record. As regards the reversal of ITC in respect of
purchases from Sri Vela Hardware and Paints, it is unclear as to the basis
for concluding that the petitioner had purchased paint in view of the
petitioner's reply dated 23.09.2023 and the documents annexed thereto.
The undischarged liability of Rs.20,232/- each towards CGST and SGST,
which learned Additional Government Pleader referred to, relates to this
and not the first issue. Since the petitioner's reply and the documents
annexed thereto were not taken into consideration, the impugned order is
unsustainable as regards these issues.
5. For reasons set out above, the impugned order is set aside in so
far as it pertains to the issues relating to difference between GSTR 1 and
3B and reversal of ITC with regard to purchases from Sri Vela Hardware
and Paints. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for reconsideration
only with regard to these two issues. After providing a reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the
respondent is directed to issue a fresh order with regard to these two
issues within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
4/6
W.P.No.10413 of 2024
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
18.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
kj
To
Deputy State Tax Officer-I,

O/o The Assistant Commissioner,
Thindal Assessment Circle,
Erode.
5/6
W.P.No.10413 of 2024
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
Kj
W.P.No.10413 of 2024 and

W.M.P.Nos.11407 & 11408 of 2024
18.04.2024
6/6

GST 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GST 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GST 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

W.P.No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

W.P.No.10413 of 2024 and

Tvl. Kavinkumar Textiles,

Deputy State Tax Officer-I,

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar

An order dated 29.09.2023 is challenged in this writ petition.

Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to an

inspection. An intimation dated 14.02.2023 was issued and the petitioner

replied thereto on 13.03.2023. This was followed by a show cause notice

dated 17.03.2023. The petitioner replied thereto on 23.09.2023. The

impugned order came to be issued thereafter on 29.09.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned

dropped in relation to other issues. The first issue he focused on was

difference in turnover declared in GSTR 3B on comparison with the

issuance of the intimation dated 14.02.2023. In these circumstances,

learned counsel submits that the imposition of 100% penalty warrants

reconsideration. He also points out that the respondent recorded the

of enclosing details of purchases made along with reply dated

23.09.2023, learned counsel submits that it was concluded in the

3. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader,

accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned order, he

contends that the petitioner discharged liability to the extent of

Rs.42,726/-, but failed to discharge liability of Rs.20,232/- each towards

4. On examining the impugned order, it is noticeable that the

regard to the difference between GSTR 1 and 3B on 09.01.2023. In spite

receipt of the notice dated 17.03.2023. This conclusion is contrary to the

documents on record. As regards the reversal of ITC in respect of

petitioner's reply dated 23.09.2023 and the documents annexed thereto.

The undischarged liability of Rs.20,232/- each towards CGST and SGST,

which learned Additional Government Pleader referred to, relates to this

unsustainable as regards these issues.

far as it pertains to the issues relating to difference between GSTR 1 and

and Paints. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for reconsideration

only with regard to these two issues. After providing a reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the

respondent is directed to issue a fresh order with regard to these two

6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

Deputy State Tax Officer-I,

W.P.No.10413 of 2024 and

You might also like