T P Kannu And Co vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 was passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding technical glitches and the adaptation period for the GST mechanism. The Court also noted the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and their request for a final opportunity to present objections. The respondent did not oppose this request. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the impugned order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would have four weeks to submit objections with supporting documents. The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court stipulated that if the deposit or objections were not filed within the stipulated periods, the original impugned order would stand revived. The issue of the merits of the discrepancy between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B was expressly left undecided, pending the fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.T.P.Kannu and Co., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle. The impugned order was passed following a scrutiny under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, which identified a discrepancy between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The revenue proposed to reverse input tax credit on the grounds that Section 16(2)(c) of the TNGST Act was not complied with. The petitioner was issued notices in form ASMT-10 and DRC-01, and personal hearing dates were scheduled for 18.11.2023, 20.04.2024, and 25.04.2024. However, the petitioner did not avail these opportunities. The tax period under dispute is 2018-2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice. They contended that due to technical glitches in the GST portal and the initial learning curve for assessees adapting to the e-mechanism, they were unable to respond to the notices and the adjudication order. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024. The respondent, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, did not raise any serious objection to the petitioner's request for a fresh opportunity.