Path Finder India VS Assistant Commissioner

In the captioned writ petition currently under review by the Admission Board, Mr. M. Abdul Razack, the legal counsel representing the petitioner, is presenting the case before this court. The petitioner is involved as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘TN-G&ST Act’ for simplicity).

Mr. Razack informs the court that the petitioner received a notice dated March 24, 2022, which was issued under Rule 142(1A) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TN-G&ST Rules’). Following this notice, the petitioner submitted a response on April 25, 2022. Despite this reply, the issue remains unresolved, and further action or clarification is pending. The specific details or the nature of the dispute that prompted the notice and the subsequent reply are not disclosed in the initial summary, leaving the precise grounds and the legal questions at issue to be clarified as the case progresses.

In the captioned writ petition, currently under consideration by the Admission Board, Mr. M. Abdul Razack, the learned counsel for the petitioner, presents the case. The writ petitioner is a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act). The central issue revolves around a notice received by the petitioner on March 24, 2022, issued under Rule 142(1A) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (TN-G&ST Rules).

According to the counsel, the petitioner responded to this notice with a reply dated April 25, 2022. However, despite the pending reply, an order was issued on September 30, 2022, identified by reference RC.No.33AAIFP0890R1ZN/A3/2022 (hereafter referred to as the “impugned order”). This order, issued by the first respondent, severely impacts the writ petitioner’s bank account with the second respondent bank, thereby disrupting the petitioner’s financial operations and activities. The petitioner seeks relief from the writ court, challenging the validity and impact of the impugned order.

In the captioned writ petition currently before the Admission Board, Mr. M. Abdul Razack, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, presents the case. The petitioner, who is a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act), received a notice on March 24, 2022, under Rule 142(1A) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (TN-G&ST Rules). In response, the petitioner provided a reply dated April 25, 2022. Despite this response being pending, an order dated September 30, 2022, referenced as RC.No.33AAIFP0890R1ZN/A3/2022 (the impugned order), was issued by the first respondent. This order significantly affected the petitioner by restricting access to their bank account with the second respondent bank.

Given the specifics of the case, the writ Court, with the consent of both parties, has involved Mr. C. Harsha Raj, the learned Additional Government Pleader, to accept notice on behalf of the first respondent. It is noted that the second respondent bank is merely a formal party with no substantial interest in the dispute. The bank is expected to comply with any directives issued by the Court or the first respondent.

The Court has decided to review the notice dated March 24, 2022, and the reply dated April 25, 2022, to further understand the basis of the petitioner’s claims and the subsequent actions taken by the authorities. The proceedings will focus on examining the validity and impact of the impugned order on the petitioner’s financial and operational activities.

In the captioned writ petition, Mr. M. Abdul Razack, the counsel for the writ petitioner, has presented his arguments before the writ Court. The crux of the issue revolves around the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act) and the subsequent rules under it. The petitioner, a dealer under the TN-G&ST Act, received a notice dated 24.03.2022, which cited Rule 142(1A) of the TN-G&ST Rules, 2017. In response, the petitioner sent a reply on 25.04.2022. However, despite the pending reply, an order dated 30.09.2022, referenced as RC.No.33AAIFP0890R1ZN/A3/2022, was issued by the first respondent, which significantly affected the petitioner by restricting access to their bank account with the second respondent bank.

Given the narrow focus of this writ petition, the Court requested Mr. C. Harsha Raj, the learned Additional Government Pleader, to accept notice on behalf of the first respondent. With the consent of both parties, the main petition was considered. It is noted that the second respondent bank is only a formal party with no stake in the dispute and will adhere to any directives from this Court or the first respondent.

The writ Court reviewed the notice issued on 24.03.2022 and the reply dated 25.04.2022 as part of the case files. The primary contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel is that the reply sent should have led to proceedings under either Section 73 or Section 74 of the TN-G&ST Act. This is the sole issue for consideration in the writ petition.

In the captioned writ petition, currently before the Admission Board, Mr. M. Abdul Razack, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, presents the case. The writ petitioner, a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act), received a notice on March 24, 2022, under Rule 142(1A) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (TN-G&ST Rules). The petitioner responded to this notice on April 25, 2022. Despite the response being pending, an order dated September 30, 2022, referenced RC.No.33AAIFP0890R1ZN/A3/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”), was issued by the first respondent, which significantly impacted the writ petitioner’s bank account with the second respondent bank.

The court, due to the specific issues raised in the petition, directed Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, to accept notice on behalf of the first respondent. Both parties consented to proceed with the main writ petition. The second respondent bank was noted to be a formal party with no substantive stake in the matter, merely bound by any court or respondent’s orders.

The central issue in the writ petition is whether the writ petitioner, having sent a reply to the notice, should have been subjected to proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 of the TN-G&ST Act. The learned counsel emphasized this point as the sole contention of the writ petition.

The Revenue counsel clarified that the impugned order was issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the TN-G&ST Act. It was noted that authorities should specify the legal provision under which notices or orders are issued to enhance clarity and specificity for both the revenue and the dealer. The notice clearly indicated that the writ petitioner was considered a defaulter under sub-section (12) of Section 75 of the TN-G&ST Act. Moreover, the notice mentioned an interest claim based on Section 50(1) of the TN-G&ST Act, though it seemed to be a template and referred to tax rather than interest. This discrepancy was evident from the document’s tabulation.

In summary, the writ petition focuses on whether the procedure followed was appropriate and whether the notice and subsequent order were justified under the relevant sections of the TN-G&ST Act. The court’s determination will hinge on the proper application of these sections and the clarity of the authorities’ actions.

Download PDF:
Path Finder India

For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court 

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law