Tvl.Sri Bhuvaneshwar Cartons vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Bhuvaneshwari Cartons, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 29.12.2023 and 27.06.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Pudukottai. These orders were issued for the assessment year 2017-18 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The impugned orders were passed ex-parte due to a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, where the petitioner allegedly did not avail an opportunity when a show cause notice was uploaded. The petitioner contended that their GSTIN account was closed long back, making it unreasonable to expect them to monitor the portal and participate in proceedings.

Held

The Court, taking into account the petitioner's submission that their GSTIN account was closed, decided to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that it was unreasonable to expect them to monitor the portal for proceedings after their account closure. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 29.12.2023 and 27.06.2024 were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks as a condition for this relief. Upon payment, the petitioner is to appear before the respondent, file a reply, and produce documentary evidence. The respondent is then to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law, expeditiously. The Court also ordered the raising of any freezing of the petitioner's bank account. The issue of limitation was not expressly decided but implicitly addressed by granting a fresh opportunity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 29.12.2023 and 27.06.2024, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission that their GSTIN account was closed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that since their GSTIN account was closed at their request, they could not be expected to periodically verify the portal and participate in the proceedings. They sought to quash the orders as being passed without jurisdiction and without affording sufficient opportunity, referencing CBIC Circular No.183/15/2022-GST. Revenue's arguments: The respondent contended that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte because the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice uploaded on the portal, despite a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A.