Tvl. Vairam Agencies Vodafone Cell vs. The State Tax Officer

After the demise of the petitioner's father on 02.09.2017, the petitioner claims that instructions were given to the Manager to close and wind up the business. However, it is submitted that the said Manager continued to operate the business and as a result, tax liability has been saddled in the name of the deceased person.

It is, however, noticed that, notwithstanding the death of the petitioner's father on 02.09.2017, there were inward supplies made by Vodafone to ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tvl.Vairam Agencies Vodafone Cell, the proprietary concern of the deceased, up to 31.03.2018, to the tune of Rs.3,45,38,823.81, attracting the following tax liability:- Tax Period Suppression of taxable outward supply value as per GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B (Rs.) Outward supply value proposed @ 110% of the value of purchase as per Rule 30 of TNGST / CGST Rules, 2017 (Rs.) GST Rate (%) Tax Proposed (Rs.) IGST (Rs.) CGST (Rs.) SGST (Rs.) July 2017 to March 2018 3,45,38,823.81 3,79,92,706.19 18 0.00 34,19,364 34,19,364 Total 3,79,92,706.19 0.00 34,19,364 34,19,364

It is noticed that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice, which has been duly considered and has culminated in passing of the impugned order. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The primary ground raised by the petitioner is that, although no return was filed, the time for filing the annual return was extended up to 05.02.2020 and hence, in terms of Section 74(10) of the respective GST enactments, the limitation for passing the order expired on 04.02.2025. It is also contended that the tax liability has been fastened on a deceased individual and therefore, on that ground as well, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.

The contention that the impugned order is barred by limitation under Section 74(10) of the GST enactments cannot be accepted in the light of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The period of limitation begins from 06.02.2020 and therefore, the last date for passing the order would be 05.02.2025. In the present case, the order has been passed on 05.02.2025 and thus, the impugned order has been passed within the period of limitation.

Moreover, the records show that the petitioner was afforded several opportunities. The reply was submitted only in January 2025 and the notice in Form DRC-01 was served on 16.09.2023 through RPAD, in addition to being uploaded on the GST web portal. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the peculiar facts of the case, particularly, the fact that the petitioner may be liable for the tax demand under Section 93 of the respective GST enactments, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

If such an appeal is filed within the said period, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the same and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law, within a further period of three months, subject to the petitioner making the mandatory pre-deposit. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No

2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- The State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai - II Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN

2025 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis