M.Elangovan VS The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer

Mr. J. Kumaran, a learned Government Advocate, has taken notice for the respondents in a legal matter. The parties involved have consented to the main writ petition being taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. This suggests that both parties agree to proceed with resolving the petition without the need for further preliminary hearings or delays. This decision streamlines the legal process, potentially expediting the resolution of the case.

Mr. J. Kumaran, a knowledgeable Government Advocate, has taken notice for the respondents in a legal matter. The main writ petition is being considered for final resolution at the admission stage, with the agreement of all parties involved.

The petitioner is expressing grievances concerning proceedings that occurred on June 26, 2018. These proceedings consisted of a show cause notice directed at the petitioner. The essence of the notice was to inquire why a certain proposal should not be confirmed and why tax and penalty shouldn’t be imposed.

Mr. J. Kumaran, a knowledgeable Government Advocate representing the respondents, brings to attention a case where the main writ petition is expedited for final resolution, with the agreement of both parties involved. The petitioner expresses discontent with the proceedings dated 26.06.2018, characterized as a show cause notice. In this notice, the petitioner was summoned to provide reasons as to why a proposal should not be ratified and tax along with penalties imposed.

Representing the petitioner, Mr. S. Doraisamy, legal counsel, asserts that in accordance with a Circular issued on 13.03.2018 by the Public Works Department of the Government of Puducherry, Goods and Services Tax (GST) is not applicable. Instead, Value Added Tax (VAT) is deemed relevant concerning payments made to the contractor for services rendered and invoices raised before 01.07.2017.

Mr. J. Kumaran, a knowledgeable Government Advocate representing the respondents, has taken notice in a legal matter. The parties involved have consented to expedite the main writ petition for final resolution during the admission stage. The petitioner is discontented with the proceedings dated 26.06.2018, characterized as a show cause notice. In this notice, the petitioner was summoned to justify why a proposal should not be confirmed, and tax along with penalty imposed.

Mr. S. Doraisamy, the counsel representing the petitioner, argues that according to a Circular dated 13.03.2018 issued by the Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, only VAT (Value Added Tax) is applicable, not GST (Goods and Services Tax), for payments to contractors for work done and invoiced before 01.07.2017. Consequently, he contends that the current show cause notice, seeking to impose tax and penalty under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for work undertaken by the petitioner in 2015, lacks merit and cannot be sustained.

Mr. J. Kumaran, a learned Government Advocate, represents the respondents in a case where the main writ petition is being considered for final disposal at the admission stage, with the consent of all parties involved. The petitioner is contesting proceedings dated 26.06.2018, characterized as a show cause notice, which called upon the petitioner to justify why a proposed confirmation and imposition of tax and penalty should not proceed.

Mr. S. Doraisamy, representing the petitioner, argues that according to a Circular issued by the Public Works Department of the Government of Puducherry on 13.03.2018, only VAT (Value Added Tax) is applicable, not GST (Goods and Services Tax), regarding payments made to contractors for work completed and invoiced before 01.07.2017. Therefore, Doraisamy asserts that the current show cause notice aiming to impose tax and penalty under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for work completed by the petitioner in 2015, lacks validity. He contends that the show cause notice should be nullified.

Mr. J. Kumaran, a knowledgeable Government Advocate, steps in to represent the respondents in a legal matter. Through mutual agreement, the primary writ petition is being considered for final resolution at the initial stage itself. The petitioner is disputing proceedings from June 26, 2018, characterized as a show cause notice. This notice demands an explanation from the petitioner as to why a proposal should not be confirmed and tax along with penalties levied.

Mr. S. Doraisamy, counsel for the petitioner, argues that according to a Circular dated March 13, 2018, issued by the Public Works Department of the Government of Puducherry, Goods and Services Tax (GST) is not applicable. He contends that only Value Added Tax (VAT) is relevant for payments made to contractors for work completed and invoiced before July 1, 2017. Consequently, he asserts that the show cause notice, aiming to impose taxes and penalties under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for work undertaken by the petitioner in 2015, lacks validity. Mr. Doraisamy asserts that the show cause notice should be nullified.

On the opposing side, the learned Government Advocate (P) argues that the challenged proceedings constitute merely a show cause notice, thereby rendering the writ petition unsustainable. Additionally, he points out that the petitioner has already responded to the notice on July 4, 2018. Therefore, he suggests that this response will be duly considered, and decisions will be made based on its merits and in adherence to the law.

In essence, the matter revolves around the validity of a show cause notice issued to the petitioner regarding tax and penalty imposition under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for work conducted in 2015. While the petitioner claims the notice is unfounded due to the applicability of VAT according to a circular, the Government Advocate maintains that the notice is valid, and the response provided by the petitioner will be considered for further action.

Mr. J. Kumaran, a learned Government Advocate representing the respondents, has taken notice for the respondents. By mutual agreement of the involved parties, the main writ petition is being considered for final resolution at the admission stage itself.

The petitioner is contesting against proceedings dated 26.06.2018, characterized as a show cause notice, where the petitioner was asked to justify why the proposal should not be confirmed and tax along with penalty should not be imposed.

Mr. S. Doraisamy, counsel for the petitioner, argued that according to a Circular issued by the Public Works Department of the Government of Puducherry on 13.03.2018, only VAT is applicable, not GST, for payments made to contractors for work done and invoiced before 01.07.2017. Hence, the show cause notice proposing tax and penalty under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for work done by the petitioner in 2015, is unsustainable and should be set aside.

On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate (P) argued that the challenged proceedings are merely a show cause notice and thus the writ petition is not maintainable. He further stated that the petitioner has already responded on 04.07.2018, and the reply will be duly considered before passing appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

The court, after hearing both parties, acknowledges that the challenge in this writ petition revolves around the show cause notice. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay GST as VAT has already been paid for the transaction preceding the introduction of GST. This argument is supported by the Circular dated 13.03.2018 issued by the Public Works Department.

It is emphasized that the petitioner has the right to present all objections through their reply to the show cause notice and dispute the proposal. The petitioner has indeed raised objections on 04.07.2018. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the relevant official to make appropriate decisions on the objections raised by the petitioner, considering the merits and in accordance with the law, taking into account the materials provided by the petitioner, including reliance on the Circular dated 13.03.2018.

The court clarifies that any opinions expressed in the show cause notice are merely prima facie and thus the petitioner’s assertion that the authority issuing the notice has already made up its mind may not be correct.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law;