2025 (2) TMI 725 - HC - GST

Mismatch of the figures set-out in the profit and loss account and GSTR-3B - first respondent has not considered various aspects while passing the impugned assessment orders inspite of providing the entire details - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The break-up of the amount paid towards tax for the sale of scrap and tax paid on the amount realized from the sale of the batteries has been placed for the first time before this Court and the same was not been considered by the first respondent before passing the assessment orders. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. This Court is therefore of the view that an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to put-forth its case based on the materials now produced. The impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The High Court of Madras considered the challenge to impugned orders passed by the first respondent for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 in a case involving a petitioner engaged in the manufacturing of Electric Storage Batteries and parts thereof. The main issue revolved around a mismatch in tax liability between the figures reported in the profit and loss account and GSTR-3B. The petitioner contended that the sale of scrap batteries was included in the cost of materials and that tax had been paid on income from the sale of scrap batteries. However, the respondent raised concerns regarding the remittance of the entire tax amount.The petitioner argued that the respondent had not considered the details provided regarding the tax payments for scrap and the sale of batteries, leading to the mismatch in figures. In response, the Government Advocate for Taxes emphasized the importance of ensuring the full deposit of tax amounts. During the proceedings, the petitioner produced documents showing the split-up of tax payments for scrap and batteries, which had not been considered in the assessment orders.The Court acknowledged that the breakdown of tax payments had not been taken into account by the first respondent. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit any additional replies, objections, and relevant documents within two weeks. Upon receipt of the additional information, the respondent was instructed to issue a notice for a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders promptly.In conclusion, the Court issued directions for a reconsideration of the matter based on the newly presented evidence, emphasizing the importance of a fair assessment and compliance with tax obligations. The Writ Petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.