Tvl.Balaguru Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Balaguru Traders, represented by its proprietor B.Guna Seelan, a senior citizen and registered GST dealer, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 26.12.2023 for the period 2017-18, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Virudhunagar. The petitioner claimed to have failed to notice preceding notices and consequently did not respond to them, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner also stated they did not file an appeal within the stipulated time due to the same reason and only became aware of the order when recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioner, aged 78, submitted medical documents to support their claim of ill health.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's delay in responding and filing an appeal was noted, and the revenue's contention regarding time-bar and laches was acknowledged, the interest of both the petitioner and the revenue could be balanced. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.12.2023. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. Subsequently, the petitioner was to file a composite reply with supporting documents to the respondent within the same 30-day period. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, preferably within two months thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 26.12.2023, passed by the respondent authority, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularity and lack of opportunity to the petitioner to file objections? The petitioner argued that they did not receive or notice the notices preceding the assessment order, preventing them from filing objections and supporting documents. They also submitted that their failure to file an appeal within the time limit was due to not being aware of the order until recovery proceedings commenced, compounded by their advanced age and medical conditions. The petitioner relied on their medical certificate to explain their inability to respond promptly. The respondent revenue authority contended that the writ petition was 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, and also argued that the appellate remedy was time-barred under Section 107 of the GST Enactments.