M.Raju vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, M. Raju, filed three writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle. The impugned orders were issued on July 27, 2022, December 16, 2022, and July 12, 2023, for the tax periods May 2022, October 2022, and May 2023, respectively. The petitioner contended that as per Section 62(2) of the GST Act, if returns are filed within 30 days of the impugned orders, the orders are deemed withdrawn. The petitioner stated that returns were filed for May 2022 on August 2, 2022, for October 2022 on December 19, 2022, and for May 2023 on July 22, 2023. The revenue argued that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for rectification.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has a remedy to file an application for rectification before the second respondent under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to file such an application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court directed the second respondent to entertain the rectification application if filed within the specified period and dispose of it in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner fails to file the rectification application within the specified time, the impugned orders would be revived. No costs were awarded. The issue regarding the deemed withdrawal of orders under Section 62(2) was not expressly decided but was implicitly deferred pending the rectification process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner are deemed to be withdrawn in light of the petitioner filing returns within 30 days of the said orders, as stipulated by Section 62(2) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available for rectification of the orders under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which should be availed before approaching the High Court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their timely filing of returns, as per Section 62(2) of the GST Act, should result in the deemed withdrawal of the impugned orders, rendering the demand null and void. They contended that the revenue's insistence on payment despite this provision violated principles of natural justice. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by filing an application for rectification under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and that the petitioner had prematurely approached the High Court without exhausting this statutory mechanism.