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

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. TEXZONE INDIA, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (FAC), Karur, under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was a best judgment assessment for the month of December 2024, passed due to the petitioner's failure to file GST returns. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was cryptic and non-speaking, and that the time limits for filing returns under Section 62, including the extended period, should be treated as directory, especially since the assessment is provisional and can be reconciled in the annual assessment. The respondent argued that the proviso to Section 62 contains an outer condonable limit and cannot be held to be directory, and that an appeal against a similar interpretation was pending before the Division Bench.

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 it has consistently taken this view in previous judgments. Once a return is filed, even belatedly, the best judgment assessment order should no longer survive. The Court relied on the binding precedents cited by the petitioner and found no compelling reasons to differ. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was to be considered appropriately by the respondent while making further assessment for the year. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

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 a return is filed belatedly. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the time limits for filing returns under Section 62 are directory. They contended that even if returns are filed beyond the initial 60-day period or the extended 60-day period, the assessment order should not survive. The petitioner cited previous judgments of the High Court in support of their contention, 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. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the proviso to Section 62 clearly defines an outer condonable limit, which cannot be treated as directory. They further submitted that the department had filed an appeal before the Division Bench against a similar interpretation, which was pending at the condonation of delay stage, and therefore, the Court should not accept the petitioner's interpretation.