Mrp Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (St)-Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. MRP Traders, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-II, Srivilliputhur Assessment Circle. This order was preceded by notices ASMT 10 dated 28.07.2023, GST DRC 01A dated 04.09.2023, and GST DRC 01 dated 03.10.2023, for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner claimed to be a small-scale operator unaware of the notices posted on the GST common portal and the impugned order itself. The respondent revenue authority contended that the writ petition was time-barred due to latches and that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under Section 107 of the GST enactments.
Held
The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding the time-barred nature of the writ petition and the appellate remedy, exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner might have a case on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 was quashed. The case was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order on merits. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax into the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Ledger within 30 days of receiving the order. The impugned order, now quashed, was to be treated as an addendum to the preceding show cause notices. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter, ensuring the petitioner is heard before passing the order. No specific issue was left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.12.2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, particularly for not providing an adequate opportunity of personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that as a small-scale operator, they were unaware of the notices served through the GST common portal and the subsequent impugned order. They contended that their right to natural justice was violated by not being afforded a proper personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the order and a direction to the respondent to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent argued that the writ petition was hopelessly time-barred and suffered from latches. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and also cited Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others to support their contention that the appellate remedy was also time-barred, thus warranting dismissal of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed for the assessment year 2021-22. The impugned order precedes the notices in ASMT 10 dated 28.07.2023, GST DRC 01A dated 04.09.2023 and GST DRC 01 dated 03.10.2023. 3. It is noticed that a personal hearing notice dated 06.11.2023 was sent to the petitioner. Despite the same, the petitioner has not appeared for the personal hearing and therefore, based on the available materials, the impugned order has been passed.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a small scale operator and was unaware of the notices that were posted in the GST common portal. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also unaware of the impugned order 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dated 13.12.2023 which was sent to the petitioner on the GST Common Portal.
The above submission is opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, on the ground that the Writ Petition is hopelessly time barred and therefore, liable to be dismissed, on account of latches, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440. 6. It is submitted that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and submitted that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, discretion is exercised partly in favour of the petitioner by quashing the impugned 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order and remitting the case back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax to the credit of the first respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices that preceded the impugned order.
It is expected that the petitioner shall file a reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with above deposit. The first respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before passing the order. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 01.08.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-II, Srivilliputhur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi Road, Rajapalayam – 626 117. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.