Tvl.Sst And Co/Sethu Susila vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1 (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.SST & Co/Sethu Susila, represented by its Proprietor Susila, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (FAC), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli. The impugned order confirmed a demand for CGST and SGST tax, penalty under Section 73, and interest under Section 50(1) for the year 2017-18. The total demand was approximately Rs. 6,14,033/- for CGST and Rs. 6,13,178/- for SGST. The petitioner contended that as a small operator, they failed to notice the show cause notices and personal hearing notices posted on the GST common portal and requested an opportunity to explain their case. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing it was time-barred and barred by laches, citing Supreme Court decisions.
Held
The Court decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner. The impugned assessment order dated 28.12.2023 was quashed. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- of the disputed tax into the respondent's Electronic Cash Register. The impugned order, once quashed, 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 the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months, after hearing the petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary issue of the validity of the assessment order was resolved by remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.12.2023, confirming a demand of approximately Rs. 12,27,211/- in total for CGST and SGST, penalty, and interest for the year 2017-18, is illegal and liable to be quashed, and if the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to redo the assessment proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, a small operator, failed to notice the show cause notices (ASMT 10 dated 31.07.2023 and dated 20.09.2023) and personal hearing notices (dated 31.10.2023, 11.12.2023, and 18.12.2023) posted on the GST common portal and sought one opportunity to explain their case. Respondent's arguments: The writ petition is hopelessly time-barred and liable to be dismissed on account of laches, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Furthermore, the appellate remedy is also time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50(1), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 issued by the respondent bearing reference in GST No.33BJKPS5414C1ZE the assessment year 2017-18. 3. By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the following demand: Particulars CGST SGST Tax Due (In rupees) Rs.2,88,787/- Rs.2,88,787/- Penalty u/s.73 (In rupees) Rs. 28,879/- Rs. 28,879/- Interest u/s.50(1) (In rupees) Rs.2,96,367/- Rs.2,96,367/- Total Rs.6,14,033/- Rs.6,13,178/-
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a small time operator and therefore, failed to notice that the show cause notices in ASMT 10 dated 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2023 and Show Cause Notice dated 20.09.2023, which were posted in the GST common portal.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has also failed to notice the three personal hearing notices dated 31.10.2023, 11.12.2023 and 18.12.2023 and submits 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. 7. It is submitted that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as held by the Hon'ble 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given partial relief by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its 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 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with 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, subject to the above deposit. 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 petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 28.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (FAC), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli. 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.