Mariammal Stores vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mariyammal Stores, represented by its Proprietor S.Balasubramanian, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Thanjavur I Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to the period 2017-18 and was issued under GSTIN:33AFHPB5272M1ZF. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper opportunity to participate in show cause proceedings. The petitioner had failed to respond to show cause notices (DRC 01A dated 09.09.2023, DRC 01 dated 29.09.2023) and personal hearing notices (dated 15.09.2023, 16.10.2023, and 07.12.2023). The dispute arose due to discrepancies between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. The petitioner sought an opportunity to provide a proper reply.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner had failed to respond to the show cause notices and personal hearing notices, they may have a case on merits. Exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 08.12.2023. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order, after which the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner was heard. The Court noted that the appellate remedy was time-barred but still granted relief on the condition of partial deposit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 08.12.2023, passed for the period 2017-18, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, violation of statutory provisions, and principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's alleged failure to participate in show cause proceedings and personal hearings? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be given an opportunity to provide a proper reply to the show cause notices and that the impugned order was passed without affording them a fair chance to be heard. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's laches and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others. The respondent also highlighted that the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments was time-barred.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the similar orders passed by this Court, wherein the impugned orders were passed, without the petitioner participating in the show cause proceedings, have been set aside. In this case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned assessment order dated 08.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18, bearing reference in GSTIN: 33AFHPB5272M1ZF
It appears that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notices in DRC 01A dated 09.09.2023, DRC 01 dated 29.09.2023 and three personal hearing notices dated 15.09.2023, 16.10.2023 and 07.12.2023 and has thus suffered by the adverse assessment order. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It appears that the dispute arises on account of the discrepancy between the amount in GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to give proper reply.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submits that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, on account of latches, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may have a case on merits and therefore, discretion is partly exercised in favour of the petitioner and quashed the impugned order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from his Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.
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. The respondent shall thereafter pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months, subject to the above deposit. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before passing the order. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 24.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The State Tax Officer, Thanjavur I Assessment Circle, No.20/3, Sachindanantha Moopanar Road, Thanjavur – 1. 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.