9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal they are liable to be dismissed. Reading of the impugned orders also indicates that the tax liability determined is the net liability after adjustment of ITC in GSTR- 2A. Therefore, even on this count there is no case made out for interfering with the Impugned Assessment Orders. Petition dismissed. - Honourable Mr. Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan For the Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate COMMON ORDER By this common order, both these writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the respective orders passed by the respondent, State Tax Officer ( Intelligence) both dated 15.10.2019 in GST INS Regr. Sl.No. 1/2019-20 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 [December 2017 to March 2018] and for the Assessment Year [2018-19 April 2018 to March 2019]. 3. The impugned orders have been passed by the respondent under Section 62 of the TNGST, Act, 2017 in Form GST ASMT-13. Details of demand confirmed vide impugned orders together with interest due from the petitioner are as hereunder :- W.P.No. Assessment Year IGST CGST SGST Total Due ITC as per GSTR-2A 14334/20 2017-2018 27,70,722 37,498 37,498 28,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the inspection carried on 28.05.2019 and was informed that the petitioner had still not filed Returns in Form GSTR-3B from July 2017 to March 2019 and filed only monthly Returns in Form GSTR-1 by quantifying the taxes payable under the various heads. Since the petitioner failed to file Returns in Form GSTR 3B. the petitioner was informed that proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner. 9. Thereafter, Notice dated 01.07.2019 under Section 46 of the TNGST Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to file returns in GSTR-3B for the period between from September 2017 to March 2018 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid notice, failing which, the petitioner was informed that action under Section 62 of the Act would be initiated against the petitioner. 10. Later, the petitioner was issued with another notice dated 23.07.2019 fixing personal hearing citing the earlier demanded notice dated 01.07.2019. A further demand was made for the composite period between April 2018 and March 2019 by including tax liability to the petitioner for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. 11. The petitioner however did not comply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs. Antarim Zila Parishad [Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556] and also Nivedita Sharma v. COAI, (2011) 14 SCC 337 : (2012) 4 S CC (Civ) 947]). I n Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419], the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In paragraph 7, the Court observed thus:- (Thansingh Nathmal case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in 18 (2016) 1 SCC 315 reference to Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying the rejection of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 21 : (2018) 361 ELT 22], which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online Guj 570 : AIR 2015 Guj 97] and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE [Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE, 2013 SCC Online Kar 10432 : (2013) 298 ELT 481]. The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 2005 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has partly discharged the tax liability for the month of July 2017 and August 2018. 21. Thereafter, another notice dated 01.07.2019 under Section 46 of the TNGST Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was called upon to file returns for the period from September 2017 to March 2018. 22. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with another notice for personal hearing dated 23.07.2019 citing the earlier demanded notice dated 01.07.2019. A further demand was made for the composite period by including tax liability to the petitioner for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. However, there was no satisfactory response to the same from the petitioner. 23. The petitioner was required to file Annual Return under Section 44 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and Final Return under Section 45 of TNGST Act , 2017. 24. The petitioner has filed returns and paid tax dues for the month from September 2017 to November 2017 alone. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders both dated 15.10.2019 and assessed the tax liability of the petitioner under Section 62 of the TNGST Act 2017 to the best of his judgment based on the materials gathered during the inspection an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
