M/S.Palaniyappa Store vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Palaniyappa Store, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an assessment order dated May 9, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukottai-1, for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notices preceding the impugned order and only learned about the proceedings when recovery notices were issued. The petitioner had previously challenged a similar order for the assessment year 2022-23, which was disposed of by the Court with specific directions. The impugned order was passed ex-parte as the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner should be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the respondent. This opportunity is conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the respondent is directed to hear the petitioner on merits and dispose of the case. The impugned order dated May 9, 2023, is quashed with this liberty granted. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary decision was to allow a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated May 9, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax period 2017-18 is illegal and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notices and lack of participation in the proceedings. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the notices issued by the respondent and the impugned order itself, only becoming aware of the matter upon receiving recovery notices. They sought an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notices or their right to participate. The judgment notes the submissions of both parties were considered.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to impugned order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent vide proceeding GSTIN:33AAFPM937HIZH/2017-18 and quash the same as illegal.
Petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 09.05.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 passed under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017. Already, the petitioner had challenged a similar order for the assessment year 2022-23 in W.P.(MD).No.8985 of 2024, which came to be disposed on 10.04.2024 with the following observation: “ i.The petitioner is directed to deposit the disputed tax of Rs.14152.00 towards CGST and Rs. 14152.00 towards SGST, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii.The petitioner shall also simultaneously file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. iii.If such appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall entertain and dispose of the appeal without reference to the limitation on merits. _____________ Page No. 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis iv.In case the petitioner fails to either deposit the amount or file an appeal within such time, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed further for recovery of tax from the petitioner. v.In case the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the amount paid by the petitioner shall be refunded back to the petitioner. In case the assessment order is upheld by the Appellate Authority in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner, the respondent shall recover further amount towards interest and penalty if any from the petitioner.”
A reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that petitioner was unaware of the communication of the notices that preceded the impugned order or the impugned order itself and that the petitioner came to know about the proceedings only after recovery notices were issued.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 5.This Court is of the view that petitioner can be given a fresh opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the 1st respondent on _____________ Page No. 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis payment of 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to payment of the above said amount, the 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner on merits and dispose the case. The impugned order stands quashed with the above liberty. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 12.04.2024 Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order kpr Copy To: The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Pudukottai-1, Assessment Circle Pudukottai _____________ Page No. 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN
, J.
kpr W.P.(MD)No.9106 of 2024 12.04.2024 _____________ Page No. 5 of 5 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.