M.Shajitha Banu vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M. Shajitha Banu, is an assessee under the jurisdiction of the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Palakkarai Assessment Circle. The petitioner failed to file their GST returns for November 2022. Consequently, the respondent issued a GSTR 3A notice on 25.11.2022 and subsequently passed an assessment order under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, on 11.01.2023. The petitioner filed their belated returns on 27.01.2023. The assessment order was passed in the name of Abdul Razak Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who had passed away on 30.10.2022. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
Held
The Court held that the assessment order passed under Section 62(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017, is deemed to have been withdrawn upon the filing of a belated return by the registered person within thirty days of the service of the assessment order, as stipulated in Section 62(2). The Court noted that while the statute prescribes a time limit for filing belated returns, courts have held this limit to be non-mandatory. Therefore, upon the petitioner filing their return on 27.01.2023, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 stood automatically withdrawn. Additionally, the Court found that the assessment order was passed in the name of a deceased person, Abdul Razak Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who had passed away on 30.10.2022. An order passed in the name of a dead person is a nullity and thus liable to be set aside on this ground as well. The Court quashed the impugned order and granted liberty to the respondent to verify the returns filed by the petitioner and issue a fresh show cause notice if any short-payment is found.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is automatically deemed to have been withdrawn upon the filing of a belated return within the stipulated period, as per Section 62(2) of the Act? 2. Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that once a belated return was filed, the assessment order under Section 62(1) is deemed to have been withdrawn as per Section 62(2) of the Act. They argued that the time limit for filing belated returns is not mandatory and courts have held this view. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and therefore illegal. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the issuance of the assessment order implies reliance on Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for proceeding against a non-filer of returns.
Sections Cited
Section 62, Section 39, Section 45, Section 46, Section 44, Section 50, Section 47, Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard both sides. 2.The writ petitioner is an assessee coming under the juri iction of the respondent. The petitioner failed to file their returns for the month of November 2022. Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 reads as follows:- “62.Assessment
of non-filers
of returns. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 73 or section 74, where a registered person fails to furnish the return under section 39 or section 45, even after the service of a notice under section 46, the proper officer may proceed to assess the tax liability of the said person to the best of his judgment taking into account all the relevant material which is available or which he has gathered and issue an assessment order within a period of five years from the date specified under section 44 for furnishing of the annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid relates. (2) Where the registered person furnishes a valid return within thirty days of the service of the assessment order under sub-section (1), the said assessment order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn but the liability for payment of interest 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under sub-section (1) of section 50 or for payment of late fee under section 47 shall continue.” Invoking the said provision, GSTR 3A notice was issued on 25.11.2022. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 11.01.2023. Whileso, the petitioner herein filed their returns belatedly on 27.01.2023. Though the statute prescribes time limit of 60 days for filing the late returns, Courts have held that this time limit is not mandatory. Once the late return has been filed, the order making best judgement assessment is deemed to have been withdrawn. Applying the statutory mandate set out in Section 62(2) of the Act, it is declared that the impugned order stands automatically withdrawn. It is open to the respondent herein to verify the returns filed by the writ petitioner. If there is any short-payment, fresh show cause notice can be issued making appropriate demand from the assessee. 3.The assessee was one Abdul Razak Mohamed Ali Jinnah. He had passed away on 30.10.2022. The impugned order has been passed in his name. The order passed in the name of a dead person is a nullity. On this ground also, the impugned order has to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
With the aforesaid liberty to the respondent, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Palakkarai Assessment Circle, CT Buildings, Trichy - 01. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias
2025 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.