Jefferson Samuelraj Prem Paul Nayagam vs. The Assistant Commissioner ( St) ( Circle)

Facts

The petitioner, Jefferson Samuel Raj Prem Paul Nayagam, proprietor of M/s. COPAG ABRASIVES, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated March 28, 2022, for the tax periods 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. These orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Circle), Tuticoin-III Assessment Circle. The petitioner had not filed replies to the notices issued prior to the impugned orders. The writ petitions were filed on September 14, 2022, which was beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court decision to argue for dismissal.

Held

The Court decided to set aside the impugned orders. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they would deposit 10% of the disputed tax for each assessment year within 30 days of receiving the order and would also file replies to the pre-impugned notices within the same period. The petitioner was also directed to reply to the impugned orders as if they were corrigenda to the preceding notices. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within 60 days of the petitioner's compliance. The Court made it clear that if the petitioner failed to deposit the amounts within the stipulated time, the respondent would be at liberty to pass orders based on available material and proceed with recovery. The issue of delay in filing the writ petition and the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment were implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to grant relief, albeit with conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders dated March 28, 2022, passed by the respondent for the tax periods 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 are liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the lack of a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as they were not afforded a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They sought to quash the orders and obtain a fresh assessment after a personal hearing. Revenue's contention: The respondent argued that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440, likely on grounds of alternative remedy and delay.