Vishaka Export VS Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order, which stemmed from discrepancies noticed in the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A input mismatch. According to the petitioner, these discrepancies were the basis for the impugned order issued by the sole respondent.

In his arguments against the impugned order, the petitioner’s counsel raised several issues. Firstly, he argued that the impugned order was issued without the necessary preceding forms, specifically GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A. Secondly, he contended that no show cause notice (SCN) was issued by the respondent before making the impugned order, which he believes is a procedural lapse. Thirdly, he pointed out that the petitioner had already filed a rectification petition under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TN-GST) Act, and that this petition is still pending.

Given these submissions, the writ court found it appropriate to issue a notice. This step was taken to ensure that the petitioner’s concerns are addressed, with Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, the learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent in this matter.

In the case of discrepancies noticed between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, the sole respondent issued an impugned order, leading the writ petitioner to file the current writ petition to challenge this order. The petitioner’s counsel raised three primary points during the hearing: first, that the impugned order was not preceded by the required Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A; second, that no show cause notice (SCN) was issued by the respondent before making the impugned order; and third, that the petitioner has filed a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TN-G&ST Act, which is still pending.

Given these submissions, the writ court found it appropriate to issue notice. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), accepted the notice on behalf of the lone respondent, and the learned Revenue counsel indicated that he had received instructions regarding the case. Due to the narrow scope of the main writ petition, the court determined that a counter affidavit from the respondent was unnecessary. With the consent of both parties’ counsel, the main writ petition was taken up and heard.

Regarding the first point, the petitioner’s counsel cited an order from a previous case, Shri Tyres Vs. State Tax Officer, dated 21.09.2021, where under similar circumstances, the court had interfered with the impugned order. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the current case should be treated similarly. The learned Revenue counsel pointed out that there has been an amendment to Rule 142, but the specifics of how this amendment affects the case were not detailed in the provided text.

In summary, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s points and the relevant previous case law, leading to the issuance of notice and the acceptance of the notice by the respondent’s counsel. The court proceeded with the hearing of the main writ petition without requiring a counter affidavit, given the instructions received by the learned Revenue counsel.

In the case presented, there was a significant discrepancy noted between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, which led to the issuance of an impugned order by the respondent. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition.

In his challenge against the impugned order, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted three primary issues during the hearing. Firstly, he argued that the impugned order was not preceded by the mandatory Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A. Secondly, he contended that no show cause notice (SCN) was issued by the respondent before the impugned order was made. Thirdly, he pointed out that the petitioner had already filed a rectification petition under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act (TN-G&ST Act), which was still pending.

Considering these submissions, the court deemed it appropriate to issue a notice. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent and confirmed that he had received instructions regarding the matter.

Given the narrow scope of the main writ petition and the instructions received by the learned Revenue counsel, the court determined that a counter affidavit from the respondent was not necessary. Consequently, with the consent of both the petitioner’s and respondent’s counsels, the main writ petition was taken up and heard.

Regarding the first issue, the petitioner’s counsel referenced an earlier case (Shri Tyres Vs. State Tax Officer), where under similar circumstances, the court had interfered with the impugned order. However, the Revenue counsel pointed out an amendment to Rule 142 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017, which came into effect on October 15, 2020. This amendment changed the language from “proper officer shall” to “proper officer may,” thereby introducing discretion into the requirement.

Upon reviewing this provision, the court found the Revenue counsel’s submission to be correct. Consequently, the court acknowledged that its previous ruling in the Shri Tyres case was based on outdated provisions, as neither the petitioner’s counsel nor the Revenue counsel had brought the amendment to the court’s attention at that time. The court thus corrected its stance, stating that the Shri Tyres case was no longer good law under the updated rules.

In summary, the court found the petitioner’s first argument unsubstantiated due to the amended Rule 142. The court emphasized the importance of judicial correctness over consistency, correcting its earlier position based on the updated legal framework.

The dispute arises from discrepancies noticed between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, leading to the impugned order against the writ petitioner. The petitioner challenges this order on three grounds: (a) the order was not preceded by the required Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A; (b) no show cause notice was issued; and (c) a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TN-G&ST Act is pending.

In response to these submissions, the Court decided to issue notice, and Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), accepted notice on behalf of the respondent. Given the narrow scope of the petition, the Court deemed a counter-affidavit unnecessary and proceeded to hear the main writ petition with the consent of both parties.

Regarding the first point, the petitioner’s counsel referred to a previous order (Shri Tyres Vs. State Tax Officer) where a similar issue led to the Court intervening. However, the Revenue counsel highlighted an amendment to Rule 142 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, effective from 15.10.2020, changing “proper officer shall” to “proper officer may.” The Court acknowledged this amendment, stating that the Shri Tyres case is no longer applicable since the amendment was not considered in that decision.

The Court carefully examined the amendment and confirmed the Revenue counsel’s submission, leading to the conclusion that the earlier decision in the Shri Tyres case was based on the pre-amendment version of Rule 142. Therefore, the Court corrected its stance, stating that the Shri Tyres case is not good law post-amendment. The Court acknowledged that neither party in the Shri Tyres case had brought the amendment to its attention, which influenced the incorrect application of the rule in that instance.

In conclusion, the Court recognized the amendment to Rule 142, emphasizing the necessity of proper legal procedures and accurate application of the law in rendering judicial decisions.

In a legal context concerning a writ petition, the dispute revolves around discrepancies noticed between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A inputs, prompting the issuance of an impugned order against the petitioner. The petitioner challenges this order on several grounds, primarily arguing that the order was issued without preceding Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A, and without a formal show cause notice (SCN) from the respondent. Additionally, the petitioner has filed for rectification under Section 161 of the TN-G&ST Act, which remains pending.

During the hearing, the court acknowledges the three main points raised by the petitioner’s counsel and decides to issue notice based on these submissions. The respondent, represented by Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), accepts the notice, confirming that instructions are in place.

Regarding the procedural objections raised by the petitioner, the court finds that a counter affidavit from the respondent is unnecessary due to the narrow scope of the issues. With mutual agreement, the court proceeds to hear the main writ petition.

The first contention raised is that the impugned order lacked the prerequisite Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A. The petitioner cites a previous case involving Shri Tyres where a similar issue led to judicial interference. However, the Revenue counsel points out an amendment to Rule 142 of the TN-G&ST Rules, effective from 15.10.2020, which altered the mandatory language to discretionary (‘shall’ to ‘may’). The court acknowledges this amendment, emphasizing the importance of correctness over consistency in judicial decisions. Consequently, the precedent set in the Shri Tyres case is deemed irrelevant as it did not consider the amended rule presented by either party at the time.

The court highlights Paragraph No. 10 of the Shri Tyres case, where Rule 142, including its sub-rule (1A), was discussed based on its pre-amendment version. This discrepancy in the presentation of rules prior to and after the amendment underscores the need for updated legal arguments in light of legislative changes.

In summary, the writ petition challenges an order issued without procedural requisites and pending rectification proceedings, while the court grapples with the implications of legislative amendments affecting the application of rules governing tax demands under the TN-G&ST Act. The decision emphasizes the importance of up-to-date legal arguments and the correct application of statutory amendments in judicial proceedings.

The case revolves around a writ petition challenging an order based on discrepancies noted between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A filings. The petitioner contends that the impugned order was issued without prior issuance of Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A, and without a show cause notice (SCN). Additionally, the petitioner has filed a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TN-G&ST Act, which is pending.

During the hearing, the court acknowledged the points raised by the petitioner’s counsel and issued notice to the respondent. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), accepted the notice, indicating they were prepared to respond.

Regarding the first point raised by the petitioner about the absence of Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A, the petitioner cited a previous case where a similar issue was addressed favorably. However, the Revenue counsel pointed out an amendment to Rule 142 of the TN-G&ST Rules, effective from October 15, 2020, which changed the mandatory nature (‘shall’) of certain actions by the proper officer to discretionary (‘may’). The court, upon careful consideration, found the amended rule applicable and decided that the previous case cited by the petitioner no longer held as it was decided under the earlier rule framework.

The court emphasized the importance of correctness over consistency in judicial decisions and clarified that the current legal framework must be adhered to. The ruling underscored that the amended rules were not considered in the previous case, highlighting the procedural change brought by the amendment.

In conclusion, while the petitioner raised several procedural objections against the impugned order, the court primarily addressed the issue related to the amended rule under Rule 142 of the TN-G&ST Rules, finding it to be correctly applied in the current case. The matter was considered on its merits, reflecting the court’s adherence to updated legal provisions in tax matters under the GST regime.

The case revolves around a writ petition challenging an order issued by the respondent concerning discrepancies in GST returns, specifically between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. The petitioner asserts that the impugned order lacked procedural adherence, namely the absence of prior issuance of Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A and the non-issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) before the order was passed. Additionally, the petitioner has filed a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TN-GST Act, which is pending.

During the court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted three main arguments: first, that Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A were not served prior to the order; second, that no SCN was issued by the respondent; and third, the pending rectification petition. Responding to these submissions, the court decided to issue notice, with the respondent’s counsel acknowledging receipt and confirming instructions.

Regarding the first argument about Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A, the respondent cited an amendment to Rule 142 of the TN-GST Rules, effective from October 15, 2020, which changed the mandatory language “shall” to “may,” giving discretion to the proper officer. The court noted this change and recognized the amendment’s impact, concluding that its earlier decision in a similar case (Shri Tyres Vs. State Tax Officer) was no longer applicable due to the changed rule.

The court emphasized the importance of being correct over consistency and acknowledged that the earlier decision had been made without the parties bringing the rule amendment to its attention. Consequently, the court found that the mandatory requirement for Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-01A was no longer absolute, thereby dismissing the first argument raised by the petitioner.

Regarding the second argument concerning the absence of an SCN, the court referred to its previous rulings under the TNVAT Act, stating that for certain revisions, including those under Section 22(4), an SCN was not mandatory, unlike revisions under Section 27 which required it. This precedent was cited to justify the respondent’s actions under GST.

Ultimately, the court decided to proceed with the main writ petition after receiving consent from both parties, underscoring the procedural changes and legal interpretations surrounding the issues raised. The case illustrates how amendments to tax rules can significantly impact legal interpretations and the application of precedents in judicial decisions. 

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: