The Madras High Court quashed non speaking assessment on the ground of non-adherence to Circular of Tamil Nadu (TN) Commercial Taxes Department.
The petitioner, Thirumangai Ramachandiran, has challenged the assessment order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. According to the Petitioner, only due to medical ailments, there was no response to the show cause notice issued by the respondent.
The show cause notice was issued only during the time when the petitioner was suffering from health ailments. The petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice and also categorically contended that only due to his medical ailments, he was unable to send a reply to the show cause notice.
The petitioner also contended that in the impugned Assessment Order, the respondent has erroneously come to the conclusion that there is an input tax mismatch and excess input tax claim without verifying the documents as per the provisions of Section 16 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also filed a copy of the Annual Return filed by him in GSTR – 9 filed for the year 2018-19.
As seen from the Annual Return for the year 2018-19, the input tax credit has been reversed by the petitioner himself and therefore according to the petitioner, by total non application of mind to the Annual Return submitted by the petitioner for the year 2018-19, the Assessment Order has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner also contended that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned Assessment Order and that the Assessment Order also does not disclose that a personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
The petitioner also relied upon a recent Circular of the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, in Circular No.1/2023-TNGST, dated 04.01.2023 and submitted that the following documents will have to be scrutinised by the Assessing Officer before passing the Assessment Order
The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “It is not clear as to whether the above mentioned Clause in the Circular was adhered to by the respondent before passing the impugned Assessment Order. Even though the Circular referred to supra came in later point of time, the instructions given in the said Circular ought to have been adhered to by the respondent before passing the impugned Assessment Order and only then, it can be construed that the respondent has adhered to the principles of natural justice.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
