In W.P. No.18311 of 2023 -MADR HC- Madras High Court dismisses Karmaxx Infotech's writ petition due to lack of cooperation in assessment proceedings
Justice Anita Sumanth [20-06-2023]

Read Order: Karmaxx Infotech v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Harbour Assessment Circle

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, July 4, 2023: The single-judge bench of the Madras High Court has declined to intervene in the matter of Karmaxx Infotech (petitioner), dismissing their writ petition. The court cited the petitioner's failure to cooperate in the assessment proceedings as a critical factor that prevented them from being entitled to any writ remedy.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner had challenged the cancellation of their registration under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, arguing that the show-cause notice lacked specific reasons, making it difficult for them to effectively respond. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader had argued that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the notice and understood its content. The notice referred to Section 29(2)(e), which allows cancellation for fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, clarifying the basis for the proposed cancellation.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the petitioner's unregistered premises had been inspected by the authorities even before the issuance of the notice. Therefore, the petitioner was already aware of the sequence of events leading to the notice. The bench further stated that the petitioner's query regarding the valuation of goods exemption was also well within their knowledge. Consequently, the submission that the show-cause notice was non-speaking and that the petitioner was unaware of the details of the proposals was deemed misconceived, as all the relevant facts were known to the petitioner.

The bench further noted that the petitioner was well aware of the basis of the show-cause notice, as evident from their reply dated 29.05.2023. However, the petitioner did not appear before the officer on 22.05.2023, despite receiving the notice in a timely manner. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to furnish a reply within seven working days of receiving the notice, but they filed the reply manually only on 29.05.2023, which was beyond the stipulated seven-day period provided to them.

The bench disagreed with the petitioner's suggestion that the mere act of filing a reply should be considered as an act of grace on their part and that it should have been taken into account by the assessing authority.