Tvl.Pearlport Industries INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Pearlport Industries India Private Limited, challenged an assessment order dated January 18, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Tuticorin, for the tax period April-2022 to September-2022. The impugned order followed notices ASMT-10 (dated December 23, 2022), DRC 01A (dated February 14, 2023), and DRC 01 (dated March 10, 2023), along with three personal hearing notices dated May 10, 2023, June 5, 2023, and June 23, 2023. The petitioner contended that its Managing Director suffered a serious accident on October 5, 2023, requiring hospitalization and ongoing recovery, preventing them from responding to the notices. Medical certificates and a discharge summary were submitted as evidence.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's inability to respond to the notices and attend hearings was due to a genuine medical emergency, as evidenced by the submitted medical documents. While acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding the delay and the availability of alternative remedies, the Court decided to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner, partly allowing the writ petition. The impugned assessment order was quashed. The Court directed that the quashed order be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was granted 60 days from the receipt of the order to file a reply to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within 30 days thereafter, ensuring the petitioner is heard before passing the order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of genuine hardship and violation of natural justice due to unforeseen circumstances, High Courts can exercise their writ jurisdiction to grant relief, even if alternative remedies are time-barred, provided there is a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, passed without providing a proper opportunity for the petitioner to respond due to the Managing Director's medical emergency, violates the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the serious accident and subsequent hospitalization of its Managing Director prevented it from replying to the notices and attending the personal hearings. They relied on the medical certificates and discharge summary to demonstrate this inability. Therefore, the assessment order, passed without considering their situation, is illegal and passed without jurisdiction, violating natural justice. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the Writ Petition is hopelessly time-barred due to laches, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. They also contended that the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Enactments is time-barred, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, making the petition liable for dismissal.