Tvl. Texzone INDIA vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. TEXZONE INDIA, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST ASMT-13 dated 17.04.2025, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (FAC), Karur-3 Assessment Circle. This order was issued under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period of February 2025, due to the petitioner's failure to file GST returns. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was cryptic and non-speaking. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the assessment order by the respondent, which is now under challenge before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the time period stipulated for filing GST returns under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is directory. The Court found that consistently, this Court has taken the view that the period is only directory, and once a return is filed, even belatedly, the assessment order should no longer survive. The Court relied on the binding precedents cited by the petitioner, including Tvl.T.Vijayakumar V. The Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil, The Comfort Shoe Components V. Assistant Commissioner, Ambur, Vellore, and M/s.Om Ganapathi Cranes and Earth Movers V. The Deputy State Officer-II cum The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tindivanam. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 was quashed. The matter was to be considered appropriately by the respondent while making further assessment for the year. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the time period stipulated for filing GST returns under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, including the extended period, is directory or mandatory, particularly when the proviso allows for filing within 60 days even after the initial 60-day period expires. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the time limits for filing returns under Section 62 are directory. They relied on the proviso to Section 62, which allows for filing within an additional 60 days. The petitioner further argued that assessments under Section 62 are provisional and can be reconciled during the annual assessment. They cited judgments from this Court in Tvl.T.Vijayakumar V. The Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil (W.P(MD) No.26727 of 2025), The Comfort Shoe Components V. Assistant Commissioner, Ambur, Vellore (2024(1) TMI 281), and M/s.Om Ganapathi Cranes and Earth Movers V. The Deputy State Officer-II cum The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tindivanam (W.P.No.35200 of 2025). Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the proviso to Section 62 clearly contains an outer condonable limit, making it mandatory and not directory. They stated that the department has filed an appeal before the Division Bench against a similar judgment, seeking condonation of delay, which is pending.