Tvl.Priyam Agencies vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Priyam Agencies, represented by its Proprietor K. Nagendran, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 31.12.2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Nilakottai Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner admitted to not responding to notices issued by the respondent, including ASMT 10, DRC 01A, DRC 01, and a personal hearing notice, stating they were missed as they were posted on the GST common portal. The dispute primarily concerns discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount, Rs. 41,100/-, on 12.06.2024.
Held
The Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the second respondent for a fresh assessment. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and the inclination of the Court to allow the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the receipt of the order. Subject to this deposit, the impugned order was quashed and treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The second respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The issue of whether the writ petition was maintainable due to latches and time-barred remedies was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to grant relief, overriding the respondents' objections on these grounds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition, filed challenging an order dated 31.12.2023, is maintainable despite the delay and the availability of statutory remedies, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to notices and the respondents' contention of latches and time-barred appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the notices were missed because they were posted on the GST common portal, leading to the impugned order going unnoticed. They also highlighted the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is hopelessly time-barred due to latches, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. They further submitted that the appellate remedy is also time-barred under Section 107 of the GST enactments, referencing 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
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order passed by the second respondent on 31.12.2023 in the year 2017-18 bearing reference in 33AJSPN3100H1ZF/2017-18. 3. Although the impugned order that preceded the notices in ASMT 10 dated 03.08.2023, DRC 01A dated 21.09.2023, DRC 01 dated 30.09.2023 and personal hearing notice dated 03.11.2023, the petitioner has failed to respond any of the notices.
Prima facie, it appears that the dispute pertains to the discrepancy 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis between the Return filed by the petitioner in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has failed to notice the notices that preceded the impugned order as they were posted in the GST common portal. It is submitted that for the same reason, the impugned order that came to be passed on 31.12.2023, went unnoticed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the disputed tax on 12.06.2024 for a sum of Rs.41,100/-.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the Writ Petition is hopelessly time barred and therefore, liable to be dismissed, on account of latches, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is submitted that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and submitted that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and considering the fact that the petitioner has deposited 10% of the disputed tax, the Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit another 15% of the disputed tax to the credit of the second respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to above deposit, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is expected that the petitioner shall file a reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with above deposit. The second respondent shall pass a fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before passing the order. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 30.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The State Tax Officer, Nilakottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Office, Nilakottai, Dindigual – 624 208. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
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.