M/S.Palaniyappa Store vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Palaniyappa Store, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukottai. The impugned order confirmed tax due of Rs.14152.00 (CGST) and Rs.14152.00 (SGST), interest of Rs.1805.54 (CGST) and Rs.1805.54 (SGST), and penalty under Section 74(9) of Rs.14152.00 (CGST) and Rs.14152.00 (SGST) for the assessment year 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and that they were willing to deposit the disputed tax and appeal the matter, but the appeal period had expired. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the delay.

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. It noted the petitioner's willingness to deposit 100% of the disputed tax and to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed tax amount of Rs.14152.00 towards CGST and Rs.14152.00 towards SGST within 30 days of receiving the order. Simultaneously, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The Court ordered that if such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall entertain and dispose of it on merits, without reference to the limitation period. The Court further stipulated that if the petitioner fails to deposit the tax or file the appeal within the stipulated time, the respondent would be at liberty to proceed with recovery. If the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the deposited amount will be refunded; if the assessment order is upheld, the respondent can recover further amounts towards interest and penalty. The Court expressly left undecided the maintainability of the writ petition on merits, focusing instead on providing a procedural remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 09.05.2023, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2022-2023, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at this stage, considering the delay in approaching the court and the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, as argued by the respondent? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice. They also stated their willingness to deposit the disputed tax and file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, but were prevented from doing so due to the expiry of the limitation period for filing the appeal. They prayed for the quashing of the order. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the delay in filing, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440. They prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.