Vishnu Industries Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Vishnu Industries challenged a tax demand order issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer for the financial year 2017-18 due to a mismatch between its GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns. The company had received a notice under Section 73(1) of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017, but failed to respond or pay the disputed tax on time, leading to the issuance of the contested order. Later, Vishnu Industries filed an application for rectification on February 23, 2024, arguing that it had already deposited 108% of the disputed tax, including a 10% pre-deposit for appeal purposes. However, the rectification request remained undecided.
The Madras High Court, after considering both parties’ arguments, directed the tax authorities to address the rectification application within three weeks. It emphasized that the matter should be resolved in accordance with the law. With this order, the court effectively provided Vishnu Industries a chance to rectify the alleged discrepancies while ensuring tax compliance procedures are properly followed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order Reference No.ZD3312232525001/2017-18 dated 28.12.2023 passed by the respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Industrial components and allied and it is registered under the GST Act. During the relevant period of 2017-18, the petitioner has filed the returns and paid appropriate taxes. However, during the scrutiny of the petitioner’s return, it was found that there was a mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B.
3. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner in Form DRC- 01A on 15.09.2023, followed by a notice in DRC-01A under Section 73(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and personal hearing was offered on 29.10.2023 followed by reminder on 27.11.2023. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor paid the tax Hence, the impugned order came to be passed, confirming the proposal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an application for rectification on 23.02.2024 and the said application is still pending before the concerned authority.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has remitted 98% of the disputed tax on 26.12.2019. Apart from that, the petitioner has already been deposited 10% of the disputed tax while preferring the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chennai on 28.05.2024 and the same was rejected on the ground that the same is beyond the statutory period. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner totally 108% of the disputed tax has already been deposited. However, the said application for rectification filed by the petitioner dated 23.02.2024 is still pending before the concerned authority and the same is not disposed till date.
5. The learned Government Advocate (T) appearing for the respondent would submit that since the application for rectification filed by the petitioner dated 03.2024 is still pending, the same will be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on records.
7. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the respondent is directed to consider the application for rectification filed by the petitioner dated 23.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
