Tvl. M. Sannasi vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, TVL. M. Sannasi, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Theni, for the assessment year 2018-19. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's failure to file annual returns (GSTR 9) in time, resulting in the levy of late fees. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The order was not formally communicated but uploaded to the web portal. The petitioner undertook to file an appeal within four weeks of receiving a copy of the High Court's order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was not formally communicated to the writ petitioner and was only uploaded to the web portal. Consequently, the limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only from the date the petitioner became aware of the order. The petitioner undertook to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed, it shall be entertained without reference to limitation and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, provided the petitioner complies with other procedural formalities. Upon numbering of the appeal, the attachment made on the petitioner's bank account shall be lifted forthwith. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order itself, but rather on the procedural aspects of its communication and the petitioner's right to appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was cryptic, non-speaking, and thus illegal and arbitrary. They also contended that the order was barred by limitation and passed without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the order was not properly communicated, as it was only uploaded to the web portal, and therefore, the limitation period for challenging it should commence only from the date of their knowledge. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the context suggests the respondent passed the order for non-filing of returns and levy of late fees.