M/S. Muthuram Blue Metals vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Muthuram Blue Metals, filed four writ petitions challenging orders passed by the State Tax Officer (FAC), Shengottai Circle. The impugned orders, dated 25.10.2023, confirmed demands for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notices preceding these orders, as they were posted on the GST common portal, and consequently, they failed to respond. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case. The respondent argued that the writ petitions were time-barred due to latches and that the appellate remedy was also time-barred, citing Supreme Court decisions.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had a case on merits and exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner. The impugned orders were quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. This decision was made subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax into the credit of the first respondent from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. The Court considered the impugned orders as an addendum to the show cause notices. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter, ensuring the petitioner is heard before passing the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent are liable to be quashed on the grounds of gross violation of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable despite being filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for appeals, considering the petitioner's claim of unawareness of the notices and orders? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the notices (DRC 01A dated 02.03.2023 and DRC 01 dated 08.06.2024) and the subsequent impugned orders because they were posted on the GST common portal, which they did not monitor. They requested a reasonable opportunity to explain their case, even if it meant depositing a portion of the disputed tax. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the writ petitions were "hopelessly time barred" and suffered from "latches," citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. They also argued that the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments was time-barred, referencing Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
By this common order, these four Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.18139 to 18142 of 2024
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned orders passed by the respondent as detailed below: S.No W.P.(MD)No. Assessment Year Impugned
order dated 1. 18139 of 2024 2017-18 25.10.2023 2. 18140 of 2024 2018-19 25.10.2023 3. 18141 of 2024 2019-20 25.10.2023 4. 18142 of 2024 2021-22 25.10.2023
By the impugned orders, the respondent has confirmed the demands in the respective notices that preceded the respective impugned orders. 5.The petitioner was earlier issued with the notices in DRC 01A dated 02.03.2023 and notice in DRC 01 dated 08.06.2024 for the respective assessment years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.18139 to 18142 of 2024 was unaware of the issuance of the notices that preceded the impugned orders as they were posted in the GST common portal, the petitioner had not responded to the same.
It is submitted that for the same reason, the petitioner failed to notice the impugned orders and has not responded to the same.
It is submitted that the Court may put the petitioner to any reasonable terms so that the petitioner can explain the case. It is submitted that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to explain.
The above submission is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, on the ground that these Writ Petitions are 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 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.18139 to 18142 of 2024
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 these Writ Petitions are 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 order and remitting the case back to the 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 orders, which stand quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices that preceded the impugned orders. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.18139 to 18142 of 2024
It is expected that the petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with above deposit. The respondent shall pass fresh orders 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. These Writ Petitions are disposed of, with above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 01.08.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The State Tax Officer (FAC), Shengottai Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.18139 to 18142 of 2024 C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd W.P.(MD) Nos.18139 to 18142 of 2024 01.08.2024 7/7 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.