TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. KPR CONCRETE READYMIX REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI V. SELVARAJU VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SALEM [2024 (1) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]held that the dispute revolves around the classification of services, which does not fall within the limited category of cases in which a Show Cause Notice may be assailed in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court decided not to interfere with the Impugned Notice.
Facts:
KPR Concrete Readymix (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in providing transportation services to customers. The Petitioner classified its services under the Service Accounting Code (“SAC”) 996511 and paid a GST rate of 12% on such services.The State Tax Officer (“the Respondent”) issued a notice in FORM DRC-01A, alleging short payment of tax on the services provided by the Petitioner should be classified under SAC 996601, which attracts a GST rate of 18%.
The Petitioner contended that its services are classifiable under SAC 996511 and provided relevant documents and consignment notes. The Respondent did not consider the reply of the Petitioner and issued a notice in FORM DRC-01(“the Impugned Notice”).
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Notice the present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner.
Issue:
Whether dispute revolving around the classification of services provided by the Assessee can be the subject matter of the writ petition?
Held:
The Madras High Court in M/S. KPR CONCRETE READYMIX REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI V. SELVARAJU VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SALEM [2024 (1) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]held as under:
- Opined that, there are limited circumstances in which a show cause notice may be interfered with. The foremost of such circumstances is if the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction. A show cause notice may also be interfered with if no case is made out even assuming that the statements made in the show cause notice are correct. In the Impugned Notices, the Respondent has taken the view that the services provided by the Petitioner qualify as rental services which are classifiable under the SAC 996601 because of the extent of control exercised by the person availing of the services.
- Held that, upon examining the notices in FORM DRC-01, the replies thereto and the Impugned Notices, this case does not fall within the limited category of cases in which a Show Cause Notice may be assailed in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Impugned Notice was issued in respect of a dispute revolving around the classification of services provided by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Court did not interfere with the writ petition.
- Directed that, the Petitioner has liberty to reply to the Impugned Notices and raise all the objections in respect thereof. In turn, the Respondent is directed to consider all the objections before deciding the matter. Hence, the two writ petitions were disposed of.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])