Tvl.Sri Pavi Garments vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Sripavi Garments, represented by its Proprietrix S.Vasanthakokila, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Excise, Karur Division. This order was passed for the tax periods July 2017 to March 2019. Previously, an assessment order dated 31.08.2023 for the assessment year 2018-2019 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.23238 of 2023. This Court, by an order dated 29.07.2024, remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. Following the remand, the petitioner participated in the proceedings but claims they could not effectively pursue the matter due to financial crisis, leading to the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's reason of financial crisis cannot be accepted as a valid ground to set aside the impugned order, especially when adequate opportunity had already been granted by the respondent. The Court noted that the original assessment order was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and participated in the proceedings. However, no effective reply was filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found no inclination to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.02.2025. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the respondent, is contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, warranting its quashing and a direction for a de novo assessment order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be quashed and a fresh assessment order passed de novo under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that although they participated in the proceedings post-remand, they were unable to effectively pursue the matter due to financial difficulties, and therefore, the impugned order should not have been passed in these circumstances. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner pursuant to the remand order. Despite participation, the petitioner failed to file a proper reply. Consequently, the respondent passed the assessment order dated 07.02.2025 in accordance with law, and there is no infirmity in the order requiring interference by the Court.