Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Inspection)

Facts

The petitioner, NTC Infrastructure and Engineering Private Limited, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Inspection). This was the second round of litigation, as the petitioner had previously approached the High Court against assessment orders dated 29.09.2023. Those orders were set aside and remitted for a speaking order within six weeks. The petitioner contends that the respondent passed a new assessment order on 10.12.2024, beyond the stipulated timeline, rendering the proceedings abated. Subsequently, the petitioner's rectification application under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, filed against the 10.12.2024 order, was rejected on 11.04.2025. The petitioner argued that this rejection left them without remedy, as they could not file a statutory appeal against the belatedly passed order.

Held

The Court held that the case law settled in service law regarding time limits cannot be imported for adjudication orders under tax laws. It found that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner merely due to the delay in passing the order within the stipulated six weeks. The Court noted that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 10.12.2024 by way of a rectification application under Section 161, which was rejected on 11.04.2025. While the rectification order's dismissal did not mean the original order merged with it, the pendency of the rectification application entitled the petitioner to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against both the rectification order dated 11.04.2025 and the original assessment order dated 10.12.2024 within thirty days from the receipt of the Court's order. The Court clarified that if no appeal was filed within this period, the demand would crystallize, and the respondent could initiate recovery proceedings. The respondent was directed not to initiate coercive steps for thirty days from the order's receipt.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on 10.12.2024, are abated due to non-compliance with the six-week timeline stipulated by this Court in its previous order dated 16.04.2024, thereby rendering them liable for quashing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed by the Court in the previous round of litigation. They contended that this delay meant the proceedings should have abated, and the subsequent order dated 10.12.2024 was invalid. Furthermore, they argued that the rejection of their rectification application on 11.04.2025 left them without an effective remedy, as they could not file an appeal against the belated assessment order. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternate remedy against the rectification order dated 11.04.2025 and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.