Sri Durga Structurals v. STO/CTO

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 892 (Mad-HC) IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT B. Pugalendhi Durga Structurals v. STO/CTO W.P. (MD) No. 5071 of 2024 and W.M.P (MD) No. 4866 of 2024 Petitioner by: S. Muthuvenkatraman R1 by: R. Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader R2 by: Mr. Pethu Rajesh ORDER The petitioner is a registered tax payer. The 1st respondent has initiated proceedings as against the petitioner by issuing a Show Cause Notice on 30-6-2023 that there was a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 and also conducted an enquiry and passed an order attaching the petitioner's property, pursuant to which, the petitioner's bank account has been frozen. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notice and other proceedings have been communicated to the petitioner only through portal and he is not accustomed to the same and therefore he did not participate in the enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is having valid grounds before the 1st respondent. However, he has failed to avail the opportunity due to his ignorance in following the notice through portal. Now the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen and therefore the petitioner is not in a position to do his business and his entire business come to a stand still. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st respondent and submits that the impugned order has been passed after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and Show Cause Notice was issued on 30-6-2023 and another intimation notice was issued under section 73 of TNGST Act on 01-6-2022. Personal opportunity was also provided to the petitioner. The petitioner has not availed any of those opportunities and therefore, the petitioner cannot now plead he was not aware of the notice. He would further submit that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy as against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, however the same was not availed in time. 4. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and perused the materials available on record. 5. The 1st respondent has noticed certain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 and mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 for the year 2019-2020. An ASMT-10 order was passed on 28-3-2022 and an intimation under section 73 of the Act was issued on 01-6-2022. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-6-2023 and was also provided personal hearing as required under section 75(5) of the Act. Admittedly the Show Cause Notice and other communication were made only through portal. Section 169 (D) enables the 1st respondent to issue notice through their portal. However, most of the traders are not equipped in following these notice through portal. By engaging an Auditor or an Accountant the returns are filed. Section 169 of the Act prescribe other mode of services to the tax payers. However, the 1st respondent is opting service of notice only through portal. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 892 (Mad-HC)

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

B. Pugalendhi

Durga Structurals v. STO/CTO

W.P. (MD) No. 5071 of 2024 and W.M.P (MD) No. 4866 of 2024

Petitioner by: S. Muthuvenkatraman

R1 by: R. Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

R2 by: Mr. Pethu Rajesh

ORDER

The petitioner is a registered tax payer. The 1st respondent has initiated proceedings as against the petitioner by issuing a Show Cause Notice on 30-6-2023 that there was a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 and also conducted an enquiry and passed an order attaching the petitioner's property, pursuant to which, the petitioner's bank account has been frozen. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notice and other proceedings have been communicated to the petitioner only through portal and he is not accustomed to the same and therefore he did not participate in the enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is having valid grounds before the 1st respondent. However, he has failed to avail the opportunity due to his ignorance in following the notice through portal. Now the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen and therefore the petitioner is not in a position to do his business and his entire business come to a stand still.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st respondent and submits that the impugned order has been passed after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and Show Cause Notice was issued on 30-6-2023 and another intimation notice was issued under section 73 of TNGST Act on 01-6-2022. Personal opportunity was also provided to the petitioner. The petitioner has not availed any of those opportunities and therefore, the petitioner cannot now plead he was not aware of the notice. He would further submit that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy as against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, however the same was not availed in time.

4. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and perused the materials available on record.

5. The 1st respondent has noticed certain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 and mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 for the year 2019-2020. An ASMT-10 order was passed on 28-3-2022 and an intimation under section 73 of the Act was issued on 01-6-2022. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-6-2023 and was also provided personal hearing as required under section 75(5) of the Act. Admittedly the Show Cause Notice and other communication were made only through portal. Section 169 (D) enables the 1st respondent to issue notice through their portal. However, most of the traders are not equipped in following these notice through portal. By engaging an Auditor or an Accountant the returns are filed. Section 169 of the Act prescribe other mode of services to the tax payers. However, the 1st respondent is opting service of notice only through portal.