Tvl Suresh Auto Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Suresh Auto Agency, filed four writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirunelveli Junction Circle, for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The petitioner contended that following an inspection, they cooperated with the respondent and paid the deficit tax, except for a small portion of SGST for 2020-21. They claimed to be a small unit unaware of the notices issued (DRC 01A and DRC 01) and assumed the issue was resolved after making payments on August 25 and 26, 2022. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain their case afresh, believing they had a strong case on merits.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned assessment orders. The Court exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner after recording their submission that they were willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The quashed assessment orders were to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices previously issued. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order and deposit the specified amount from their Electronic Cash Register within the same period. The respondent was expected to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law within three months. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment orders dated July 31, 2023, passed for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 are illegal and devoid of merits, warranting quashing and a direction to redo the assessment proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, a small unit, was unaware of the notices issued (DRC 01A and DRC 01) and consequently failed to respond. They believed the matter was resolved after making payments. They requested an opportunity to present their case afresh, asserting they have a good case on merits. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed based on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Furthermore, the respondent contended that any appeal at this stage would be time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in M/S. Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
By this common order, all these writ petitions are being disposed of. 2.In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment orders all dated 31.07.2023 passed for the following assessment years 2020-21, 2019-20, 2022-23 and 2021-22. 3.The specific case of the petitioner is that an inspection was carried out, pursuant to which the petitioner cooperated with the respondent, cured the defects and paid the deficit tax due from the petitioner except for a small portion towards SGST for the assessment year 2020-21. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a small unit was unaware of the notices that preceded the impugned order and had assumed that with the payment of the amounts on 25.08.2022 and 26.08.2022, the issue stood resolved in all respect. 5.It is submitted that the petitioner being a small unit failed to notice that the petitioner was issued with notices in DRC 01A and DRC 01 and thus, the petitioner failed to respond to the same. It is submitted that for the very same reason, the petitioner had also failed to note that the impugned order had been passed on 31.07.2023 for the above mentioned assessment years. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to explain the case afresh. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has a good case on merits to succeed, if an opportunity is given. 7.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent would submit that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S.Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70. 9.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, the Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent. 10.Recording the same, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned orders, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner earlier. The petitioner shall file a reply within a 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit the aforesaid amount from its Electronic Cash Register within the aforesaid period. It is expected that the respondent shall pass thereafter a final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 26.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirunelveli Junction Circle, Tirunelveli. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm W.P.(MD) 17309 to 17312 of 2024 26.07.2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.