Tvl Saaral Agro Products P LTD vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.04.2024. The Court reasoned that a part of the tax amount had already been recovered and that the impugned order was passed in the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice. Following its consistent view in similar circumstances, the Court remitted the case back to the respondent. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. This was made conditional upon the petitioner filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.12.2023, along with requisite documents, within thirty days of receiving a copy of this order. If the petitioner complied, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of receiving the reply, after giving due notice. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent was at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Saaral Agro Products P Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the assessment year 2018-19 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, and passed without jurisdiction. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 27.12.2023. The petitioner argued that no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice before the impugned order was passed. The respondent acknowledged that out of the total tax amount of Rs.32,82,142, a sum of Rs.23,84,582 had been recovered on 11.07.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, and passed without jurisdiction? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from several defects, including being cryptic, non-speaking, and passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant GST enactments. They also contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in the absence of a proper reply to the Show Cause Notice. Respondent's contentions: The respondent did not explicitly argue on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the defects in the order. However, they acknowledged the recovery of a significant portion of the disputed tax amount.