Tvl. Dhananjay Timber And Hardware vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Dhananjay Timber and Hardware, represented by its Proprietor, filed three writ petitions challenging proceedings initiated by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-4, Trichy. The petitions pertained to GSTIN:33AIJPM4171B1ZL for the periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The impugned proceedings were dated 27.01.2021 and 29.01.2021. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the notices were issued manually instead of through the prescribed GST DRC-01 form, rendering them invalid. The respondent argued that the writ petitions were filed with significant delay (laches) after the impugned orders were passed and relied on a previous High Court decision dismissing a similar writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal.
Held
The Court considered the arguments from both sides. It noted that the petitioner had filed the writ petitions significantly after the impugned orders were passed on 27.01.2021 and 29.01.2021. Citing a previous order of the Court in W.P.(MD).No.4120 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022, which dismissed writ petitions on similar grounds of delay and directed the petitioners to avail statutory remedies, the Court decided to dismiss the present writ petitions. However, to provide relief, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Goods and Services Tax Appeals) under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court stipulated that if such appeals, along with the mandatory pre-deposit, were filed within thirty days of receiving a copy of the Court's order, the Appellate Authority should entertain and dispose of the appeals on their merits. The Court explicitly left undecided the substantive issue of whether the manual notice was indeed invalid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned proceedings, issued manually instead of through the prescribed GST DRC-01 form, are invalid under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the respondent's failure to issue the notice in the prescribed FORM GST DRC-01, as mandated by the Act, rendered the proceedings invalid and liable for quashing. They sought a direction for the respondent to issue a proper show cause notice. The respondent contended that the writ petitions suffered from laches, having been filed long after the impugned orders were passed. They relied on a prior High Court judgment (W.P.(MD).No.4083 of 2022) which dismissed a similar writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. The respondent argued that this precedent should be followed.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 27.01.2021 and 29.01.2021 in W.P(MD).Nos.5274 and 5275 of 2022 and W.P.(MD).No.5276 of 2022 respectively, only on the ground that the notice was issued in GST DRC-01 instead the notice has been issued manually. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.4083 of 2022, vide order dated 07.03.2022, wherein, the writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Goods and Services Tax Appeals). The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition long after the impugned order was passed on 27.01.2021 and 29.01.2021 in W.P(MD).Nos.5274 and 5275 of 2022 and W.P.(MD).No.5276 of 2022 respectively, therefore on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of the latches.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition long after the impugned order was passed on 27.01.2021 and 29.01.2021 in W.P(MD). Nos.5274 and 5275 of 2022 and W.P.(MD).No.5276 of 2022 respectively. I am therefore inclined to dismiss these writ petitions in the light of order passed in W.P.(MD).No.4120 of 2022, dated 08.03.2022 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Goods and Services Tax Appeals) under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. If such appeals are filed together with the mandatory pre-deposit within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar (W) //// / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sn 3/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.P(MD).Nos.5274 to 5276 of 2022 To The State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-4, Trichy. Copy to: The Section Officer, E.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (to return the certified copy of the impugned order as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner
to facilitate
the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority.) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-14553[F] dated 25/03/2022 ) +3 CC to M/s.A.SATHEESH MURUGAN, Advocate ( SR-14189,SR-14190, SR-14191[F] dated 24/03/2022 ) W.P(MD).Nos.5274 to 5276 of 2022 24.03.2022 RD(01.04.2022) 4P 7C 4/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.