Tvl. Asir Builders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Asiar Builders, represented by its Proprietor, Asirvatham Jesudurai, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The primary issue raised was the levy of interest, despite the entire taxes having been paid. The petitioner sought liberty to approach the appropriate authorities with a representation or rectification petition in light of a subsequent amendment bill.

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation or rectification petition within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court directed that if such a petition is filed, it shall be disposed of by the respondent within eight weeks thereafter. Furthermore, the Court ordered that there shall be no recovery of dues until the disposal of the representation/rectification petition. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where a taxpayer has paid the principal tax amount and disputes only the interest component, and where subsequent legislative amendments might offer a remedy, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, may permit the taxpayer to approach the concerned authorities for redressal, thereby preserving the principles of natural justice and facilitating a fair resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.12.2020, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory provisions). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the order imposing interest was erroneous as the entire tax liability had already been discharged. They further contended that they should be permitted to file a representation or rectification petition before the appropriate authorities, referencing a subsequent amendment bill, to address the issue of interest levy. Respondent's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, was present during the proceedings.