Petitioner | ELFIN E-Come Private Ltd. |
Respondent | Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State Tax Officer, Union of India, State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Assistant Commissioner (ST) |
Decision by | Madras High Court |
Date of order or Judgement | 21-February-2022 |
Citation no. | 2022 (2) GSTPanacea 69 HC Madras W.P(MD).Nos.3191 of 2022 |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice C. Saravanan |
Decision | In Favour of Revenue |
Jurisdiction of Court cannot be abused to be used as an Accessory to Legitimize Evasion of Tax. Petitioner has tried to redress the grievance before this Court wrongly.
Jurisdiction of Court cannot be abused-Facts of the Case
The impugned orders have been challenged in these three writ petitions are that the impugned orders have been passed for the very same assessment year in respect of which earlier assessment orders were passed on 03.03.2020, against which, both the petitioner and the department preferred appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.
Argument Before Court
Jurisdiction of Court cannot be abused-Petitioner’s Contention
The petitioner submits that the order is without jurisdiction and based on circular, no steps were taken earlier.
Jurisdiction of Court cannot be abused-Respondent’s Argument
The respondents submits that the petitioner had obtained GST registration for Madurai premises only and an inspection was carried out simultaneously by two different teams at Madurai and at Trichy. It is submitted that Trichy premises was not a registered premise and the petitioner was effecting supply by citing Company Identification Number and therefore two separate proceedings have been initiated. It is submitted that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter of tax and as on date, the petitioner’s GST registration has also been cancelled and not revoked till date. It is further submitted that the demand confirmed by the respondents was pertains to supply effected within jurisdiction of Trichy. It is submitted that citing the Company Identification Number and there is no over lapping of the turn over between the amount confirmed in the orders which are in appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and amount that has been confirmed in the impugned order. The respondents further submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches. The respondents further submits that the turn over of the petitioner is about Rs.4.69 Crores at Trichy and the petitioner had suppressed and resorted to clandestine supply of service without payment of tax.
Madras High Court Held
Jurisdiction of Court cannot be abused-There are several disputed questions of fact and therefore the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be abused to be used as an accessory to legitimize evasion of tax. In any event, the petitioner has an appellate remedy. Whether the petitioner had indeed to evaded tax or not, cannot be decided in this proceeding. The petitioner can pursue the appellate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner against the impugned orders. The petitioner has tried to redress the grievance before this Court wrongly, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty days. In case, if such appeals are filed before the Appellate Commissioner, Appellate Commissioner shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to state, the petitioner shall also pre-deposit the mandatory amount that is required under the Provisions of respective Goods and Services Tax Acts.
Download PDF
ELFIN E-Come Private Ltd.
Visit for Reference
Madras High Court