M/S.Shri Nila Packers vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shri Nila Packers, represented by its Proprietor B. Kannan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Tiruchendur Range. This order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction due to the amended Section 165 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The primary ground for the impugned order was that the returns were not filed in time. The petitioner argued that an amendment to Section 16 of the Act extended the time for filing belated returns up to 30.11.2021, which could potentially reduce the assessed liability if an opportunity to explain the circumstances was provided.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The primary issue revolved around the amendment to Section 16 of the Act, which extended the time for filing belated returns up to 30.11.2021. The petitioner argued that this amendment could affect the assessed liability and that they should be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances. The respondent's counsel conceded that they could not dispute the legal position of the amendment and the extended time for filing returns. Consequently, the Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for an opportunity to present their case in light of the amended provision. The impugned order dated 25.04.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, submit their reply, and place supporting documents. The respondent was instructed to consider the issue afresh in accordance with the law. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction in view of the amended Section 165 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to explain the circumstances regarding belatedly filed returns, considering the amendment to Section 16 of the Act which extended the time for filing returns up to 30.11.2021, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffers from multiple defects including being cryptic, non-speaking, and barred by limitation. Crucially, the petitioner relied on the amendment to Section 16 of the Act, which extended the period for accepting belatedly filed returns up to 30.11.2021. This amendment, the petitioner contended, would impact the assessed liability and necessitated an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner also raised concerns about jurisdiction in light of the amended Section 165 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondent's arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent was not in a position to dispute the legal position regarding the amendment to Section 16 of the Act and the extension of time for filing returns.