9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed. It is also seen that following the impugned order, the respondent vide Form GST DRC-09, issued a communication, directing the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Ramanathapuram, to recover the amount due from the petitioner under Section 79 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which is not proper. The assessment orders, bearing Assessment Nos.33AAQCA6068B1ZR/2020-21, 33AAQCA6068B1ZR/2019-20 and 33AAQCA6068B1ZR/2021-22, dated 31.01.2022, are hereby quashed. The consequential recovery notice, dated 10.06.2022, issued to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, is also hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to issue notice after following the procedures prescribed under the TNGST Act and issue show cause notice and after giving an opportunity to file their objections, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Petition allowed. - Writ Petition (MD) Nos.11376, 11384 and 11410 of 2022 And W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8094, 8098 and 8113 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice M.Nirmal Kumar For the Petitionerin all the W.Ps. : Mr.L.S.Karthikeyan for Mr.J.Shankarram For the Respondent in all the W.Ps. : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same are not correct on facts and law. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inspection and investigation have been conducted by different officers in a wrong manner, resulting in misunderstanding of facts and misinterpretation of provisions, misapplication of tariff and exemption notifications. The learned counsel also submits that the proceedings carried out were completely perverse and information and statements collected with intimation, an inducement of dropping of proceedings, are in complete violation of principles of natural justice and unreliable and the demand made in Form DRC-01A has to be rejected. 5.The contention of the petitioner is that, the Officers from the State Tax Department conducted inspection under Section 67 of the TNGST Act in three branches of the petitioner company from 14.09.2021 under orders issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Intelligence) in Form GST INS-01 at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur and Ramanathapuram showrooms, statements recorded from the Manager and Directors of the petitioner company. Subsequently, the respondent issued communication in Form DRC-01A in terms of Rule 142(1A) of the TNGST Rules, 2017, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained that personal hearing cannot be initiated at this stage of adjudication proceedings and reiterated the petitioner's stand that, the liability of tax and quantification are not agreeable. Further, the respondent has observed that the petitioner did not raise any objection to the inspection carried out from 14.09.2021 to 16.09.2021 and also agreed to the defects pointed out during the course of inspection and had paid an amount of Rs.89,52,450/- and therefore, the objections at this stage, are only an afterthought and hence, not acceptable. Accordingly, the respondent proceeded to pass the order, confirming the proposals in the notice dated 06.12.2021. The above said order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show cause notice as envisaged in Section 73 or 74 of the TNGST/CGST Act has been issued before passing the order, there is unfairness, unreasonableness in the action of the respondent. Further, referring to provision of law and stating an appeal against the order lies before the Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107(1) of the TNGST Act, within three months of receipt of the order, is not proper, only confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) Poonamallee Assessment Circle, Varadharajapuram, Chennai [2022 (3) TMI 490 Madras High Court] (vii) Agrometal Vendibles Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Gujarat [2022- TIOL-517-HC-AHM-GST] 11.The respondent has filed counter affidavit narrating the sequence of events. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the burden of proof is lying with the dealers as per the provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017. The dealer has to satisfy the assessing authority that there is no evasion of tax on the part of the dealer. Further, the dealer has to prove that there is no issue related to the show cause notice. Hence, the notice was issued in accordance with the Act and the Rules. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that based on the defects pointed out during the course of surprise inspection, the notice was properly served on the dealers and then, personal hearing notice was also given, which was also properly served on the dealers and finally, considering the objections filed by the dealers, orders were passed, which are in accordance with law and without deviating the principles of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
