M/S. R M Iwin Medical Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. R.M.Iwin Medical Agencies, filed three writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging orders passed by the State Tax Officer (FAC), Nagercoil. The impugned orders were dated April 20, 2023, August 19, 2023, and July 19, 2023, pertaining to GST for the periods 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22 respectively. The petitioner contended that the notices preceding these orders, as well as the orders themselves, went unnoticed due to the petitioner being a "small time medical agency." Consequently, any appeals filed against these orders would be barred by limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash the orders and for a fresh order after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the notices and orders went unnoticed, and the petitioner was willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for the case to be re-heard. The Court acknowledged that appeals against the orders would be barred by limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Therefore, to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case, the matter was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. The quashed orders were to be treated as an addendum to the pre-existing notices. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, and the respondent was to pass fresh orders on merits within three months thereafter, ensuring the petitioner was heard before passing the final order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing as mandated by the GST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to notice the preceding notices and impugned orders warrants a remand for fresh consideration, despite potential limitation issues for filing statutory appeals? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and impugned orders went unnoticed because they are a "small time medical agency." They contended that the respondent failed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, which is a procedural requirement under the GST Act. Due to this lack of notice and hearing, the petitioner is now before the High Court as statutory appeals would be time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for re-hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a personal hearing and re-consideration. The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent.