Tvl. Chinnamuthu Contractors vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)

In the legal proceedings outlined in W.P.No.2624 of 2024, the focus is on contesting an assessment order issued on 04.10.2023. This particular order has been challenged or criticized in some capacity. Meanwhile, in the separate legal matter documented under W.P.No.2629 of 2024, attention is directed towards a notice issued on 05.01.2024. This notice signifies the refusal of the appellate authority to accept or consider a statutory appeal. Both cases involve disputes or objections regarding official decisions or actions, highlighting legal challenges within the given timeframe.

The petitioner’s counsel presents several arguments challenging the validity of the assessment order in question. Firstly, it is contended that the order was issued without affording the petitioner a personal hearing, and crucially, without duly considering the submissions made by the petitioner in response to the notices. Additionally, there is an assertion of confusion regarding the nature of the proceedings, whether they fall under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), or the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act). This confusion is highlighted by the reference to the GSTR3B return of the petitioner as the starting point, which lacks clarity on the applicable law.

To support these arguments, reference is made to the opening paragraph of the impugned order. Furthermore, it is emphasized that a statutory appeal was indeed filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. However, this appeal was summarily rejected on procedural grounds, specifically on the basis that it was lodged 84 days subsequent to the receipt of the assessment order. This timeline discrepancy is presented as further evidence of procedural irregularity in the handling of the petitioner’s case.

In essence, the petitioner’s counsel contends that procedural lapses, including the absence of a personal hearing and the failure to adequately consider the petitioner’s submissions, as well as confusion regarding the applicable tax legislation, have resulted in an unjust assessment order. Additionally, the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds without addressing the substantive issues raised adds to the perceived injustice. Therefore, the petitioner seeks redress on these grounds.

In a legal proceeding, Mr. C. Harsha Raj, a learned Additional Government Pleader, assumes the responsibility of accepting notice on behalf of the respondent. He directs attention to the contested assessment order, highlighting that the tax proceedings under consideration span from April 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017, predating the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Additionally, he underscores that the percentage of pre-deposit concerning the disputed tax suggests that the petitioner is cognizant of the fact that the proceedings fall under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act. This summary encapsulates Mr. Raj’s involvement in the legal proceedings and his emphasis on the chronological and jurisdictional context of the tax dispute.

Download Pdf:
Tvl Chinnamuthu Contractors

For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law