Tvl. Devesh Spices vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) / (St)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that she had an excess credit of Rs.1,36,563/- appeared to be incorrect based on the record. The Court noted that for the month ending June 2017, the entry under the head "excess input tax credit" at column 11 was shown as '0.00', a fact captured in the impugned order. Since the entire writ petition rested on the issue of having this excess credit, and this issue was not proven by the petitioner, the Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Court dismissed the writ petition. The issue regarding the non-speaking nature of the order and the denial of personal hearing was implicitly not decided in favor of the petitioner due to the failure to prove the core factual contention regarding the excess credit.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Devesh Spices, represented by its Proprietor, Petchiyammal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT)/(ST), Theni. The petitioner, a dealer in cardamom and pepper registered under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was issued a show cause notice on 01.02.2019 regarding a wrongly carried forward credit amount of Rs.1,36,563/- under TRAN-1, along with interest. The petitioner contended that she had an excess credit of Rs.1,36,563/- (Rs.1,927/- + Rs.1,34,636/-) as of 30.06.2017, eligible for carry forward under Section 140 of the TNGST Act. She argued that the impugned order was a non-speaking order passed without a personal hearing. The respondent refuted the claim of no personal hearing, stating that the petitioner appeared and submitted an explanation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.10.2019, passed by the respondent, is a non-speaking order and was passed without providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was eligible to carry forward an excess input tax credit of Rs.1,36,563/- as on 30.06.2017, under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, as contended by the petitioner, or whether the petitioner had wrongly availed such credit, as alleged by the respondent? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was a non-speaking order and that no personal hearing was granted, making the order liable to be quashed. She further contended that she had an excess credit of Rs.1,36,563/- as of 30.06.2017, which was eligible for carry forward under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, and that the respondent's allegation of no excess credit was false. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent refuted the claim that no personal hearing was given, stating that the petitioner had appeared and submitted her explanation. The respondent contended that the petitioner had wrongly availed input tax credit under TRAN-1 for Rs.1,36,563/-, and that the entry for 'excess input tax credit' for the month ending June 2017 was '0.00'.