M/S.Sharvesh Outdoors vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sharvesh Outdoors, represented by its Proprietrix G. Lakshmi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai. This order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex-parte because they lacked the technical expertise to access notices and orders on the GSTN Common Portal. The impugned order was challenged on grounds of being cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of an amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash the order and prayed for a fresh assessment after an opportunity of being heard.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce supporting documents, considering the nature of discrepancies and the explanation provided for not availing the initial opportunity. The Court reasoned that such opportunities are extended on equitable grounds, albeit under appropriate conditions. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks of receiving the order's web copy. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the respondent for proceedings from the stage of personal hearing. The assessee is directed to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and documents, and the respondent is to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order would stand raised. The Court expressly left undecided the specific arguments regarding the order being cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, and the jurisdictional challenge based on Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017, by remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, and without jurisdiction, particularly in view of Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017, as amended? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order was passed ex-parte due to their lack of technical knowledge to access the GSTN portal, rendering it procedurally flawed. They also argued that the order was cryptic, non-speaking, and passed beyond the period of limitation. Furthermore, they raised a jurisdictional challenge based on the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Revenue's arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the judgment notes that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice was uploaded, leading to the ex-parte final order.