Shri J Milton Jeba Manickam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Shri. J.Milton Jeba Manickam, challenged an assessment order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise. The order pertains to the assessment years 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the demand for 2017-2018 was confirmed contrary to the limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017. For the subsequent years, the petitioner contended that a 100% penalty was wrongly imposed under Section 74 read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent argued that the demand for 2017-2018 related to the TNVAT Act, 2006, and the petitioner failed to produce records proving tax payment under that regime, indicating suppression of facts. The respondent also raised the issue of an alternate remedy.

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the impugned assessment order does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the assessment year 2017-2018, the Court noted that if the petitioner claims the assessment falls under the VAT regime (TNVAT Act, 2006), then the demand cannot be considered time-barred unless the assessment order was completed under that Act. The appropriate forum to decide these aspects, including whether a demand notice under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, should have been issued, is the appellate Commissioner. The Court did not decide the merits of the penalty for the subsequent years. The ratio decidendi is that complex factual disputes and statutory limitations are best resolved through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than a writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act within 30 days, with the delay condoned and pre-deposit requirement noted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order for the year 2017-2018 is barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the petitioner's claim that it pertains to the TNVAT Act, 2006 regime? 2. Whether the imposition of 100% penalty under Section 74 read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, for the assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 is sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The demand for 2017-2018 is unsustainable as it is beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017. The 100% penalty imposed for the subsequent years is also unsustainable. Respondent's arguments: The demand for 2017-2018 relates to the TNVAT Act, 2006, and the petitioner failed to provide substantiating records, indicating suppression of facts. The petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy available. The respondent did not explicitly argue on the merits of the penalty for subsequent years but relied on the petitioner's alleged suppression of facts.