Assessment Order passed before 10 months of providing opportunity of heard is without application of mind, to be set aside: Madras HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 22 July, 2021
Latest from Taxmann
Case details: ARSK Hardwares & Traders v. State Tax Officer,Madurai - [2021] 128 taxmann.com 171 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Mrs. J. Nisha Banu, J.
- B. Sivaraman for the Petitioner
- Ms. J. Padmavathi Devi, Spl. Govt. Pleader for the Appellant
Facts of the Case
The petitioner’s place of business was inspected by department and certain defects were noticed for the Tax period 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. The department issued notice pointing out discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and some other suppression. T he petitioners was directed to furnish objections within 15 days to the above proposals. The petitioner filed detailed objections to the pre-assessment notice and given detailed objections to each and every defect pointed out by the department and requested personal hearing before passing any orders.
Without considering the objections filed by the petitioner and without offering opportunity of personal hearing of being heard, the department concluded the impugned ex-parte assessment, for the tax period 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. However, the notice for personal hearing was issued on 31-12-2020 i.e. 10 months after the date of order. It filed writ petition against the same.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court observed that order of assessment has been passed on 7-2-2020, whereas personal hearing has been on 3-12-2020, after the order of assessment made, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the departmental officer. The petitioner was entitled to be heard in person, before the order of assessment was made. Therefore, it was held that the order was liable to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to pass fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- SRC Project (P.) Ltd . v. CCT [2010] 33 VST 333 (Mad.) (para 3)
- Shri Mariammal Fire Works v. CCT [2011] 38 VST 345 (Mad.) (para 3).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
