Santhinarayanan Santhoshkumar vs. Deputy State Tax Officer -1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Santhinarayanan Santhoshkumar, a small grocery shop owner, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-reference (ZD330823089251E) dated August 16, 2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the period 2019-20. The impugned order confirmed tax liabilities, penalties, and interest totaling Rs. 3,06,389 for CGST and SGST due to discrepancies between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B, and GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The petitioner contended that he failed to file a reply to prior notices because they were posted on the GST common portal and sought an opportunity to explain his case. The respondent argued that the writ petition was time-barred due to laches and that the appellate remedy was also time-barred, citing Supreme Court decisions.
Held
The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding the time-barred nature of the writ petition and the availability of appellate remedies, found merit in the petitioner's case. The Court decided to grant partial relief by quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh assessment proceedings. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 1,50,000/- to the credit of the respondent from his Electronic Cash Register. The impugned order, once quashed, would be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the notice preceding the impugned order within 30 days of receiving this order, along with the deposit. The respondent is to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, preferably within three months. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on grounds of laches and time bar, considering the delay in filing after the impugned order dated August 16, 2023, and the availability of statutory remedies, as argued by the respondent citing Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur? 2. Whether the petitioner, a small assessee who claims non-receipt of notices posted on the GST portal, should be granted an opportunity to present his case on merits, despite the delay and the respondent's contention of time bar? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, a small-time grocery shop owner, failed to reply to notices posted on the GST common portal and seeks one opportunity to explain his case. Respondent's contention: The writ petition is hopelessly time-barred and liable for dismissal due to laches, and the appellate remedy is also time-barred, as per Supreme Court decisions.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court long after the impugned order was passed in GST DRC 07 dated 16.08.2023 bearing reference No.ZD330823089251E.
It is noticed that the amount that has been confirmed against the petitioner towards tax liability, on account of the difference between GSTR 01 and GSTR 3B and also between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B as follows: 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a small time assessee and running a small grocery shop. The petitioner has failed to file reply to the notices issued prior to the impugned order as they were posted in the GST common portal and therefore, the petitioner may be given one opportunity to explain the case.
The above submission is opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, on the ground that the 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, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440. 6. It is submitted that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms 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. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of the respondent from his Electronic Cash Register.
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 to the notice that preceded the impugned order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with the above deposit. The respondent shall, thereafter, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard, before passing the order. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This Writ Petition is allowed, with above directions. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 28.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Srirangam Assessment Circle, Srirangam, JJ Nagar Central -II, Trichy. 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.