2024 (12) TMI 1494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner is engaged in doing business under the Trade Name Tvl. Srirenukambal Milk Centre, registered under TNGST Act and allotted GSTIN No.33AHYPT2121Q1ZM, the petitioner is the Assesse on the files of the respondent at Kelambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The primary issue in filing this writ petition arises from the impugned order passed by the respondent under Section 73 of CGST Act 2017 for non-filing of Annual returns in Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner has filed Monthly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order passed by the Assessing Officer is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. The petitioner alleges that without application of mind the final order was passed by the Assessing Officer. It is very clear and evident from the Assessment Order that even the Assessing Officer is not having any clarity on demands raised. The respondent without applying his mind erred in passing the assessment order, the petitioner submits that Section 47(2) categorically states that the registered person who fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 by the due date is liable to pay late fee of the one hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues subject to the maximum of an amount calculated at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... transactions is not in doubt. In such circumstances, the ITC cannot be disallowed on the ground of mere mismatch between the GSTR2A and GSTR3B. Hence the petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the respondent is vague in nature at it lacks clarity and erroneous in nature. Moreover, the respondent without issuing an mandatory intimation in Form GST DRC - 01A as per Rule 142 (1A) of CGST Rules under Notification No.49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 passed the final order for the assessment year 2018-19. In view of this the order passed by the Assessing Officer is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. The petitioner relies on Judgment in the case of Skyline Automation Ind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that, if an opportunity is provided, the petitioner would be able to substantiate its case and also they agree to make a payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent has uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. He has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Further he submitted that subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax in respect of the impugned assessment period, this Court can remand the matter to the Authority conc....