Tvl. S. Kumaresan Contractor vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.S.Kumaresan Contractor, engaged in works contract and registered under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 19.07.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin. The petitioner had filed returns for the period 2021-2022 and paid taxes. Discrepancies were noted between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7, leading to the issuance of notices DRC-01-A and DRC-01, and personal hearings were granted. The petitioner contended that they were unable to access the GSTIN portal, preventing their participation in the proceedings. They sought to quash the assessment order and requested a redo of the assessment.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 19.07.2023 should be set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they were unable to access the GSTIN portal and participate in the adjudication proceedings due to technical glitches and the transition to the e-mechanism. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and their request for a final opportunity to present objections. The Court found merit in this request, as the respondent did not raise serious objections. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer should not be denied an opportunity to present their case due to technical portal issues, especially when they are willing to comply with certain conditions. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks. Upon compliance, the impugned order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would have four weeks to submit objections. The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the deposit or objections were not filed within the stipulated periods, the original assessment order would stand revived.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 19.07.2023, passed by the respondent, is illegal and devoid of merits, warranting its quashment and a direction to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2021-22, in light of the petitioner's inability to access the GSTIN portal and participate in the adjudication process? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that technical glitches in the GST portal and the learning curve associated with the e-mechanism prevented them from responding to notices and participating effectively in the adjudication. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024. The petitioner also expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections. Respondent's arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent did not have serious objection to the petitioner's request for a final opportunity, provided certain conditions were met.