Facts of the Case
- The
Petitioner's Profile: The Petitioner, Tvl.V.N.S.
Construction, is a small-scale contractor represented by its Proprietor,
K. Vetrivel, engaged in civil construction and maintenance contracts.
- Nature
of Operations: The petitioner executed operation and
maintenance contracts for public water supply schemes awarded by the Tamil
Nadu Water Supply and Drainage (TWAD) Board. The bid documents and work
orders explicitly recorded that GST was not applicable to these transactions.
- The
Dispute: The Revenue authorities initiated
proceedings alleging suppression of taxable turnover for the Assessment
Year 2024-25. This allegation was formulated solely based on the
structural differences between the figures reflected in Form GSTR-7 (TDS
deductions submitted by the deductor) and Form GSTR-3B (filed by the
petitioner).
- Assessment
Conclusion: The Respondent treated the entire amount
appearing in Form GSTR-7 as taxable additional turnover and passed an
ex-parte assessment order dated 29.01.2026 under Section 74 of the TNGST
Act, raising a total demand of Rs. 31,39,032/- along with applicable interest
and penalty.
- Reason
for Non-Compliance: The petitioner failed to reply to
notices or attend personal hearings as the notices were only uploaded
online to the GST Portal. The petitioner was fully dependent on a
part-time accountant who failed to communicate these intimations, while
the proprietor was simultaneously undergoing medical treatment for severe
cervical health complications. Consequently, the petitioner's bank account
was attached by the department.
Issues Involved
- Whether
an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST/CGST Act
without an effective personal hearing violates the principles of natural
justice when the taxpayer has plausible reasons for non-compliance?
- Whether
differences between Form GSTR-7 (TDS returns) and Form GSTR-3B can
automatically be construed as suppressed taxable turnover without
evaluating the intrinsic nature of the underlying contract and applicable
statutory exemptions?
- Whether
the services rendered to the TWAD Board fall within the ambit of exemption
under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as
"pure services"?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Violation
of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that due to an
unreliable part-time accountant and severe health issues (cervical
complications), they were completely unaware of the notices uploaded to
the GST portal, resulting in an institutional breakdown of the right to be
heard.
- Statutory
Exemption on Merits: The petitioner contended that the
services provided to the TWAD Board consisted of operation and maintenance
contracts for public water supply schemes. These are "pure
services" provided to a governmental authority in relation to
functions entrusted to a municipality/panchayat under Articles 243G and
243W of the Constitution of India, making them fully exempt under Entry
No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
- Evidentiary
Invalidity of GSTR-7 Alone: The petitioner argued that
Form GSTR-7 is merely a TDS reporting statement compiled by a third party
and cannot independently serve as conclusive proof to determine the
taxability of a transaction or establish deliberate suppression of
turnover.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Failure
to Avail Opportunities: The Revenue argued that
multiple notices and systemic opportunities for personal hearings were
duly provided to the assessee via the common GST portal.
- Validity
of Ex-Parte Action: Since the petitioner failed to utilize
the statutory opportunities or file detailed objections within the
prescribed timelines, the assessing officer was legally justified in
passing an ex-parte order based on the best judgment using available
GSTR-7 TDS data.
Court Order / Findings
- Unconditional
Remand: The Hon'ble Madras High Court, presided by
Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, noted that while courts regularly
extend opportunities to taxpayers on equitable grounds subject to certain
financial conditions, an exception was warranted here.
- Recognition
of Exemption: The Court observed that the services
rendered by the petitioner appeared to be genuinely exempted from GST
under the law. Therefore, the Court granted the opportunity to the
petitioner without imposing any pre-deposit condition.
- Setting
Aside Impugned Order: The Court set aside the impugned
assessment order dated 29.01.2026 and remanded the matter back to the file
of the Respondent for fresh adjudication.
- Lifting
of Bank Attachment: As a natural consequence of setting
aside the assessment order, the Court directed that any attachment placed
on the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the impugned order stands
raised immediately.
- Direction
to Co-operate: The petitioner was directed to appear before
the assessing officer without fail and submit all necessary replies and
supporting documents to allow the respondent to pass a fresh order in
accordance with the law.
Important Clarification
This judgment clarifies an essential legal principle: Data
discrepancies between GSTR-7 (TDS returns) and GSTR-3B cannot be automatically
treated as taxable turnover without looking at the underlying nature of the
transaction. Furthermore, when a prima facie perusal of the contract
documents indicates that the service is completely exempt from GST (such as
pure services given to governmental bodies under Notification No. 12/2017), the
High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to bypass the strict rule of
pre-deposits and grant an unconditional remand to protect the taxpayer against
arbitrary ex-parte demands.
Section Involved
- Section
74 / Section 74A of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax
(TNGST) Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017
(Determination of tax unpaid or short paid by reason of fraud or any
willful-misstatement or suppression of facts).
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Writ Jurisdiction for violation of principles of natural justice).
Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783063152_346compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment