Wp(C)/23295/2023 Of Pure Aggregates Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945WP(C) NO. 23295 OF 2023 PETITIONER: PURE AGGREGATES PVT. LTD.,DOOR NO. 9/587/1, AKKARA HOUSE, CHANDY'S LANE, IKKANDAWARRIYAR ROAD, THRISSUR, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JOSEPH A.C., AKKARA HOUSE, OLLUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 680306 BY ADVS.T.R.S.KUMARDEEPA R MENONDEENA JOSEPHAKSHAY JOSEPH ADHIKARAMTHUSHARKRISHNAN K.U.SONA MARIA PAULOSEAMRUTHA PREMJITH RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER,CENTRAL CIRCLE I, KANDAMKULATHI TOWER, OPP. MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682011 2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX (INTELLIGENCE), SQUAD NO.VII, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001 3THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (ARREAR RECOVERY)STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER AHRAHAM..SR GP SMT THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Dated this the 2[nd] day of August,2023 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to quash Exts P10 to P12show cause notices issued by the third respondentunder Section 74 of the Central Goods and ServicesTax Act, 2017 (in short,’CGST Act’).2.The petitioner’s case is that, it is a privatelimited company doing business in crop products andallied materials. The petitioner’s property was acquiredunder the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013(Act of 2013). The petitionerwas paying income tax and GST in accordance withlaw. The petitioner is a loser in the land acquisitionproceedings. Due to the acquisition proceedings, thepetitioner was unable to pay the income tax and theGST liabilities. The petitioner had paid its income tax dues as evidenced by Exts P5 to P7 without anyirregularity. Yet, the second respondent has found thatthere was mismatching in filing in the GST returnsfiled by the petitioner. Consequently, the secondrespondent had issued Exts P10 to P12 show causenotices to the petitioner, under Section 74(5) of theCGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has submittedExts P13 to P15 replies to the above show causenotices. Thereafter, the second respondent has againissued Exts P16 to P19 show cause notices. It was onlybecause the compensation payable under theproceedings under the Act, 2013, got delayed, thepetitioner was not in a position to pay any interest orpenalty. Now, the third respondent has issued ExtsP22 to P24 notices, to recover interest and penaltyfrom the petitioner. The petitioner has no intention toevade tax and has not suppressed any fact. Nonetheless, the third respondent has not considered the matter in its proper perspective. Therefore, theentire proceedings commencing from Exts P10 to P12and leading to Exts P22 to P24 are arbitrary andillegal. Hence, the writ petition. 3.Heard; Sri. T.R.S.Kumar, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, Sri. Christopher Abraham,the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the firstrespondent and Smt. Thushara James, the learnedSenior Government Pleader appearing for therespondents 2 & 3. 4.Sri. Christopher Abraham submitted that thefirst respondent is not a necessary party in the writpetition. 5.The sheet-anchor of Sri. T.R.S.Kumar wasthat, notwithstanding the issuance of Exts P10 to P12show cause notices, the respondents 2 & 3 have not finalised the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner isleft remediless. the matter in its proper perspective. Therefore, theentire proceedings commencing from Exts P10 to P12and leading to Exts P22 to P24 are arbitrary andillegal. Hence, the writ petition. 3.Heard; Sri. T.R.S.Kumar, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, Sri. Christopher Abraham,the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the firstrespondent and Smt. Thushara James, the learnedSenior Government Pleader appearing for therespondents 2 & 3. 4.Sri. Christopher Abraham submitted that thefirst respondent is not a necessary party in the writpetition. 5.The sheet-anchor of Sri. T.R.S.Kumar wasthat, notwithstanding the issuance of Exts P10 to P12show cause notices, the respondents 2 & 3 have not finalised the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner isleft remediless. 6. Smt. Thushara James handed over the copyof the proceedings dated 22.10.2021, wherein it is seenthat the petitioner was granted an opportunity forfiling its reply and producing the evidence, and wasalso granted a personal hearing on 27.09.2021. On thesaid date, the Managing Director of the petitioner hadappeared before the second respondent and prayed fortime to pay the dues. But, no reply was filed orpayment was made. Accordingly, the secondrespondent finalised Exts P10 to P12 show causenotices, as early as, on 22.10.2021. According to her,the allegation that Exts P10 to P12 have not beenfinalised, is incorrect. The petitioner has an alternativestatutory remedy. 7.On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, and the arguments advancedacross the Bar, particularly the fact that independentorders dated 22.10.2021 have passed by the secondrespondent, I am satisfied that the proceedings leadingto Exts P10 to P12 show cause notices have beenfinalised. 8.In the light of the orders passed by thesecond respondent and the petitioner having analternative statutory remedy, I am not inclined toentertain the writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out itsstatutory remedies, if any available, in accordance withlaw. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/02.08.23 //True copy//P.A.To Judge APPENDIX RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL