Ramakrishnan M vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M. Ramakrishnan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajapalayam-1 Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2019-20. The impugned order was preceded by notices in Form GST DRC 01A dated 27.03.2023 and Form GST DRC 01 dated 21.06.2023. The respondent issued three personal hearing notices on 30.06.2023, 07.07.2023, and 14.07.2023. The petitioner claims to be a small-scale operator unaware of the notices posted on the GST common portal and the impugned order. The respondent argued that the writ petition was time-barred due to latches.

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding the time-barred nature of the writ petition and the availability of appellate remedies, exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner might have a case on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 was quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was then to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months, after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that even if a petition is technically time-barred, a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can exercise discretion to grant relief if there is a potential case on merits and to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld, subject to reasonable conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 19.10.2023, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically for failing to provide an adequate opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that as a small-scale operator, they were unaware of the notices issued on the GST common portal and the impugned order, thus their right to be heard was violated. They sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. The respondent contended that the writ petition was hopelessly time-barred and barred by latches, citing the Supreme Court's 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. The respondent also argued that the appellate remedy was time-barred under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.