In W.P. Nos.16535 of 2023 -MADR HC- Madras High Court refuses to entertain Writ Petitions filed by M/s. Seoyon E-Hwa Summit Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., says assessee's lack of cooperation in assessment proceedings cannot shift the blame on Revenue
Justice Anita Sumanth [06-06-2023]

Read Order: M/s. Seoyon E-Hwa Summit Automotive India Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)-I Large Taxpayers Unit Nandanam and Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, June 20, 2023: The Madras High Court has declined to admit or entertain the writ petitions filed by M/s. Seoyon E-Hwa Summit Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner), stating petitioner's lack of cooperation during the original assessment process and their failure to cooperate in rectification requests.

The petitioner had filed a challenge against an assessment order and a subsequent order rejecting their rectification application under Section 161 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the petitioner was provided with ample opportunities to substantiate its input tax credit (ITC) claim prior to the finalization of the assessment. The respondent, in the show cause notice, clearly outlined the ITC claim and requested the petitioner to provide category-wise and tax type-wise details, and to explain the variations that he had noticed.

The bench observed, “There was an appearance by an official representative in the petitioner's office before the Assessing Officer on 01.0.2023 when the representative had assured the officer that all records, as required, would be communicated to the officer before 15.02.2023. There was no compliance even on this score. It is hence that the proceedings for assessment were completed on 22.02.2023 without reference to the assessee and I find nothing untoward in this regard.”

The bench remarked that the petitioner's argument suggesting that the Assessing Officer should have examined the accompanying details in the return and come to a proper conclusion without the petitioner's cooperation, was unreasonable.

The court emphasized that it is not the responsibility of the revenue to bear the burden of an assessee who has failed to cooperate or assist in the assessment proceedings.