The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a supplier of purpose-built automotive vehicles, realizing their right to avail reassessment following their failure to participate in assessment proceedings due to not being aware of the initiation of such proceedings undertaken by the Revenue Department.
Know When to Say No to Cash Transactions, Click Here
Petitioner Tvl.Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products (Jainsons) challenged an order and consequent notice issued by the Respondent Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) with regards to the financials of the Assessee for the Assessment Year (AY.) 2012-13.
The Petitioner is an entity engaged in the supply of trailers, semi-trailers and other vehicles and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. Jainsons had filed their returns and paid the appropriate taxes for the period during 2017-18, but upon scrutiny of the monthly returns, the authority observed a mismatch between the Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A.
Varun Pandian appearing for Jainsons submitted that they were served with notice in DRC-01 and subsequent reminders and opportunity for personal hearing, none of which were adhered to by the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted that the show-cause notices and the impugned order had been uploaded in the GST Portal, therefore the Petitioner had been unaware of and unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings.
Read More: Reassessment Invalid Due to Lack of Material Disclosure: ITAT Quashes AO’s Order
Jainsons prayed for a renewed opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancies and expressed their willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to effectuate such hearing.
Additional Government Pleader C.Harsha Raj appearing for the Respondent expressed no serious objections towards the Petitioner’s proposition.
Read More: ₹19.5 Lakh Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 & 69 of Income Tax Act: ITAT Remands Case for Reassessment
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed the submissions and directed the Petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed taxes to be paid so as to provide them another opportunity of presenting their case, and objections if any, within four weeks from receiving a copy of the present order. Issuing a note of warning to the Petitioner, the Single-Judge advised that any failure to abide by the conditions set by the High Court would result in the restoration of the impugned Assessment Orde
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
