9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1041 - HC - GSTDenial of TDS claimed as Transitional Credit under Section 140 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017 - Validity of impugned Assessment Order - writ petition is late by almost three years after the impugned Assessment Order was passed on 14.07.2020 as it has been filed only on 15.09.2023 - HELD THAT - Although, explanations given by the petitioner in approaching this Court belatedly are not satisfactory, the issue on merits is prima facie covered in favour of the petitioner and against the revenue by the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M/S. DMR CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, RASIPURAM, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. 2021 (4) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - said decision has been followed by this Court in M/S. SEKAR CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER - E. SEKAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM 2021 (12) TMI 1466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The Court is inclined to set aside the impugned Assessment Order, and remits the case back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order de novo on merits and in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Issues:
The judgment involves the denial of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) claimed as Transitional Credit under Section 140 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. Denial of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as Transitional Credit: The petitioner claimed Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as Transitional Credit under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which was to be set-off towards its tax liability under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006. However, the first respondent denied this claim based on the provisions of the Act, stating that only unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) could be carried forward, not excess tax paid. The respondent ordered the petitioner to make payment of the wrongly availed ITC along with interest and penalty, totaling Rs. 6,13,043. Basis for Challenging the Assessment Order: The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order on the grounds that it preceded a communication from the Joint Commissioner and that a copy of the notice was not provided before the order was passed. Additionally, the petitioner cited a favorable decision in a similar case by a learned Single Judge of the Court, arguing that the issue is covered in their favor. Arguments and Decision: The petitioner argued that the writ petition should not be dismissed solely based on delay, as the issue is covered in their favor by previous court decisions. The Government Advocate for the respondents contended that the petition was belated and should be dismissed due to delay. The Court acknowledged the delay in approaching the Court but found that the issue on merits is prima facie in favor of the petitioner based on previous judgments. Consequently, the Court set aside the Assessment Order and directed the first respondent to pass a fresh order within sixty days, considering the petitioner's arguments and the previous court decisions. Conclusion: The Court allowed the writ petition, remanding the case back to the first respondent for a fresh order within sixty days. The petitioner was instructed to file a detailed reply within thirty days. The judgment was made without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
