Tvl.Thangaraj. R vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. R.Thangaraj, represented by its proprietor Thangaraj Ramasamy Nadar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Tuticorin-2) for the tax period 2018-19. This order confirmed a demand proposed in DRC 01 dated 29.04.2024. The impugned order stated that the petitioner had neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearings. However, the petitioner contended that they had filed a reply in GST DRC 01A part B and GST DRC 03 on 28.04.2022, which was not considered by the second respondent. A consequential order was also passed by the third respondent. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the second respondent was unsustainable. The Court noted that while the impugned order recorded that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice or appeared for personal hearings, the petitioner had indeed filed a reply in GST DRC 01A part B and GST DRC 03 on 28.04.2022. This reply was evident from the documents submitted by the petitioner and was evidently not considered by the second respondent. The Court observed that the petitioner had an opportunity to request the second respondent to exercise discretion under Section 161 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the impugned order be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, and the petitioner should file a consolidated reply within 30 days. The second respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, specifically for failing to consider the petitioner's online objection letter dated 28.04.2022? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions because their online objection letter dated 28.04.2022, filed in GST DRC 01A part B and GST DRC 03, was not considered by the second respondent. They contended that this failure rendered the order unsustainable. Respondents' arguments: The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the impugned order itself noted that the petitioner had neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared during personal hearings.