M/S.Tma Infrastructure Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. TMA Infrastructure Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Thanjavur Division. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction, particularly in light of an amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also sought a fresh assessment order after being afforded an opportunity of being heard. The respondent authority had passed the order ex-parte, as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice was uploaded.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 should be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent. The Court took into account the petitioner's submission that the discrepancy in question was covered by the amendment to Section 16A by the insertion of Section 16(5) of the Act. Consequently, the usual condition of depositing 25% of the disputed amount was not imposed. The Court granted one more opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent, file a reply, and produce documentary evidence. The respondent authority is to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law expeditiously. It was also clarified that the freezing of the petitioner's bank account shall stand raised as the matter is remanded for fresh disposal. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction, in view of the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was fundamentally flawed on multiple grounds, including being cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without jurisdiction. A key contention was that the discrepancy leading to the assessment was covered by the newly amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017, which, if applicable, would render the impugned order invalid. The petitioner also claimed the order was barred by limitation and that they were not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. Revenue's arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments. However, the judgment notes that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte because the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice was uploaded.