Tvl. Sivagnanam Insecticides Emporium vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sivagnanam Insecticides Emporium, challenged an order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Thirumangalam Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a demand of Rs.8,14,484/- from the petitioner, including penalty and interest. The demand arose from notices issued to the petitioner in Form GST DRC-01A dated 19.09.2023 and Form GST DRC-01 dated 26.09.2023, followed by a personal hearing reminder on 08.12.2023. The petitioner had not filed a reply to these notices. The petitioner also challenged Notifications No.09/2023 - Central Tax dated 31-03-2023 and G.O Ms.No.41 and its accompanying Notification dated 05-04-2023 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the fifth respondent. While the petitioner made submissions on merits, the Court did not delve into them. Instead, the case was remanded back to the fifth respondent to pass a fresh order on merits. This was made conditional on the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount with the fifth respondent. Upon such deposit and the petitioner filing a reply to the previously issued notices within 30 days of receiving the order, the fifth respondent is to pass a fresh order within 30 days thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The impugned order, now quashed, is to be treated as a corrigendum to the three notices. All issues were left open to be canvassed before the fifth respondent. The Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the fifth respondent, confirming a demand of Rs.8,14,484/- inclusive of penalty and interest, is liable to be quashed as arbitrary, void, contrary to Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and related notifications on grounds of being arbitrary, void, contrary to statutory provisions, and violative of constitutional rights. The petitioner also contended that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of their submissions, despite the absence of a reply to the notices. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Senior Panel Counsel and Government Advocate, did not file a detailed counter. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed due to the petitioner's failure to reply to the notices issued.