The Madras High Court has allowed Gillette to file a reply to GST demand subject to payment of Rs. 1 Crore.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has provided with one final opportunity to the petitioner, Gillette, to put forth their objections subject to the payment of 10% of disputed taxes of Rs.6,56,80,225 as proposed in the show cause notice.
The petitioner, Gillette, is engaged in manufacturing and trading of various personal grooming and oral care products. The petitioner is a registered dealer under Goods and Services Act, 2017.
Gillette filed its return and paid appropriate taxes. While scrutinizing the petitioner’s return, it was found that there was a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A/2B.
Subsequently, a notice in ASMT-10 was issued on 15.11.2023 and another notice was issued in DRC-01A to the petitioner on 28.05.2024 followed by reminders on 11.07.2024, 20.07.2024 and 03.08.2024. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed.
The petitioner contended that for the first time by way of the impugned order the Respondent had quantified an excess demand of Rs.247,32,89,021 in addition to the demand of taxes proposed in the show cause notice which was to the tune of Rs.10,60,28,802. The order by levying an additional demand to an extent of Rs.247.82 crores traverses beyond the show cause notice and thus hit by Section 75(7) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioner argued that the enhanced/ increased demand is in view of the fact that the impugned order levies tax on transactions of supply effected at PAN India level i.e., levy of tax in respect of supplies effected outside the State of Tamil Nadu which is wholly bad for want of jurisdiction. It was also submitted that the majority of the supplies have also been subject to tax particularly in Mumbai where they have the Head Office. Thus, the order could possibly result in levy of tax on supplies which have already suffered tax in other jurisdictions.
The court quashed the order and the Gillette shall remit a sum of Rs.1 crore within a period of two weeks. It is open to the petitioner to submit its reply within a period of two weeks thereafter treating the impugned order as show cause notice. If any reply/ documents are filed, the Respondent authority shall proceed to complete the assessment in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Case Details
Case Title: Gillette India Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Case No.:W.P. No.33728 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.36523 and 36525 of 2024
Date: 02.12.2024
Counsel For Appellant: Senior Advocate Vijay Narayanan
Counsel For Respondent: C.Harsha Raj
