Tvl.D.J.Group vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.D.J.Group, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer – 1. The impugned order was passed ex-parte due to a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns, where the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to respond to the uploaded show cause notice. The petitioner contended that the entire tax amount had already been realized. The assessment year in question was 2018-19, and the order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for reconsideration. The reasoning for this decision appears to be based on the petitioner's submission that the entire tax amount has already been realized, and the subsequent directions indicate a need for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claims. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority without fail and produce supporting documents for their claim of exemption, which the respondent is to consider in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that the petitioner must cooperate for the expeditious determination of the assessment proceedings and that the freezing of the petitioner's bank account shall stand raised. The issue of limitation and the validity of the ex-parte order were implicitly addressed by the remand for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the order was flawed on multiple grounds, including being cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without jurisdiction. They also claimed the order was barred by limitation. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the entire tax amount had already been realized, implying no further liability or need for the impugned order. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the context suggests the respondent relied on the procedure followed in issuing the show cause notice and passing the ex-parte order due to the petitioner's non-compliance.