Tvl R. K. S. Builders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl R.K.S. Builders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 15.06.2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), which was dismissed on 10.03.2025, primarily on the grounds of being filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The judgment notes that the petitioner did not reply to the notices preceding the initial assessment order. The petitioner sought to quash both the assessment order and the appellate order.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order passed by the first respondent (Deputy State Tax Officer) and remitted the case back to the first respondent for passing fresh orders on merits. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed amount as a pre-deposit in cash. The Court considered the situation similar to previous cases where such relief was granted. The impugned order, once quashed, was to be treated as a corrigendum/addendum to the notice that preceded it. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the pre-deposit. The first respondent was directed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within three months, after hearing the petitioner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order was implicitly set aside by the quashing of the original assessment order and the direction for a fresh assessment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the first respondent, and the subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation, are liable to be quashed. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 73 and Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued for quashing of the orders, seeking relief from the High Court. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, likely contended for upholding the orders passed by the authorities. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of the respondents beyond their representation, but the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner suggests a reliance on the procedural grounds of limitation. The petitioner's primary grievance appears to stem from the dismissal of their appeal due to delay, despite the underlying assessment order.