Tvl Nellai Enterprises vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Nellai Enterprises, filed five writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging assessment orders passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, alleging they were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and constituted a violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner had already filed an appeal against a previous adverse order. The court noted that the petitioner had paid a substantial portion of the disputed amounts for some periods and had deposited Rs. 2,41,688/- each towards GST and CGST for the assessment year 2019-20.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions. It directed the respondent to pass consolidated fresh orders for each assessment year, considering the overlap in proceedings and the substantial payments already made by the petitioner. For the assessment year 2020-21, the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order, along with a consolidated reply to the show cause notices. The respondent was then to endeavor to pass fresh orders for each assessment year within three months thereafter. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply with these directions, the respondent could proceed as if the writ petitions were dismissed. The impugned orders were to be treated as corrigenda to the respective show cause notices. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2017-18 are liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, thereby violating Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment orders were cryptic and non-speaking, failing to provide proper reasons for the demands. They contended that these orders were passed in clear violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017, rendering them illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's directions suggest that the respondent was expected to pass fresh consolidated orders.