Tvl Annamalai Ammal Moder Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Annamalai Ammal Moder Rice Mill, represented by its Proprietor S. Jeyakumaran, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi, for the tax period 2017-18. The impugned order was preceded by notices ASMT-10 dated 10.02.2022, DRC 01A dated 28.07.2022, and DRC 01 dated 19.08.2022. The petitioner claims to be a small operator unaware of these notices and the assessment order. The discrepancy arose from differences between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B filings, with the disputed amount being approximately Rs. 4,17,842/- (Rs. 2,08,921/- SGST and Rs. 2,08,921/- CGST). The petitioner sought an opportunity to respond to the notices and requested a redo of the assessment proceedings.
Held
The Court, having considered the arguments from both sides, was of the view that the petitioner might have a case on merits. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion partly in favour of the petitioner. The impugned assessment order dated 04.01.2023 was set aside and the case was remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax (Rs. 4,17,842/-) to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving a copy of this order, along with the deposit. The respondent was then to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner is heard before final orders are passed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 04.01.2023, passed by the respondent authority for the year 2017-18, is liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, and if the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to redo the assessment proceedings? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they are a small-time operator and were unaware of the impugned order and the preceding notices. They requested one opportunity to respond to the notices, asserting they have a good case on merits and are willing to comply with any reasonable conditions imposed by the Court. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the Writ Petition is hopelessly time-barred due to laches, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. They also submitted that the appellate remedy is time-barred under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, and therefore, the Writ Petition should be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed for the assessment year 2017-18 bearing reference in GSTIN: 33BAQPJ0287F1ZP/2017-18. 3. The impugned order has preceded the notices in Form ASMT-10 dated 10.02.2022, DRC 01A dated 28.07.2022 and DRC 01 dated 19.08.2022. However, the petitioner has not replied to the same.
It appears that the discrepancy has arisen on account of the supply reported in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B filed by the petitioner. The amount involved is around Rs.4,17,842/- (Rs.2,08,921/- towards SGST and Rs.2,08,921 towards CGST).
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis small time operator and unaware of the impugned order and the notices that preceded the impugned order.
It is submitted that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to respond the notices that preceded the impugned order, as the petitioner has a good case on merits.
It is submitted that the petitioner is willing to comply with the reasonable conditions that the Court may impose.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that Writ Petition is hopelessly time barred and therefore, liable to be dismissed, on account of latches, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and submitted that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, the discretion is exercised partly in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.
It is expected that the petitioner shall file a reply within a period of 30 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with the above deposit. The respondent shall, thereafter, pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before the final orders are passed. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 15.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.