Tvl.Simla Traders vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Simla Traders, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated December 12, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Roving Squad, Madurai. These orders confirmed tax demands for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, based on data retrieved from the petitioner's profit and loss account and balance sheet. The petitioner admitted to failing to reply to preceding notices and consequently not filing statutory appeals within the prescribed time. The total tax liability disputed is Rs. 27,00,468, with Rs. 8,86,886 already recovered. The petitioner sought an opportunity to reply to the show cause notices and requested a fresh assessment with a personal hearing.

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's contention regarding the petitions being time-barred, decided to partially rescue the petitioner. The impugned orders were quashed, and the cases were remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the balance disputed tax, amounting to Rs. 18,13,582, within 30 days. The quashed orders were to be treated as addendums to the original show cause notices. The petitioner was directed to file replies to the show cause notices within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was then to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within two months, after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on grounds of being hopelessly time-barred and suffering from laches, considering the petitioner failed to file statutory appeals within the limitation period under Section 107 of the GST Enactments? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, while admitting to the delay in filing appeals, sought an opportunity to present their case and was willing to comply with court-imposed conditions. They argued for a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the writ petitions were hopelessly time-barred and barred by laches, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others. Therefore, the petitions should be dismissed.