Tvl Aauraa Home Fashion Private LTD vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Aauraa Home Fashion Private Ltd., filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging orders dated 27.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer for the period July 2017 - March 2018. The petitioner argued that they failed to notice the notices and orders as they were posted on the web portal. They also submitted that an identical issue for a different month in the same period had resulted in an adverse order, against which an appeal was filed before the Appellate Commissioner, and thus the matter had not attained finality. The respondent was the State Tax Officer.

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, it had consistently quashed impugned assessment orders. The Court found no reason to deviate from this practice, especially as the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle of providing an opportunity to the assessee, even if they had not availed the statutory appeal mechanism. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee demonstrates a lack of notice due to portal-based communication and has a pending appeal on a similar issue, the assessment orders can be quashed and remitted back. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash for each order within 30 days and to file a reply to the show cause notices. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits within three months thereafter. Failure to comply would result in the writ petitions being dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, which were allegedly not noticed by the petitioner due to their posting on the web portal, are liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to participate in the proceedings and their contention that the matter has not attained finality due to a pending appeal on an identical issue? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they failed to notice the notices and impugned orders because they were only posted on the web portal. They also argued that since an appeal was filed for an identical issue for a different month in the same period, the matter had not attained finality. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, raised objections. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments beyond their opposition to the writ petitions.