Tvl Ganapathi Enterprises vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ganapathi Enterprises, filed three writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated September 7, 2023, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The demands in these orders were based on alleged variances between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and failure to tax on a reverse charge basis. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notices preceding these orders, as they were posted on the GST common portal, and thus could not participate in the show cause proceedings. The respondent argued that the writ petitions were time-barred due to latches and that the appellate remedy was also time-barred.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might have a case on merits. While recognizing the respondent's contention regarding the time-barred nature of the petitions and the availability of alternative remedies, the Court decided to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner partly. The impugned assessment orders were quashed, and the cases were remitted back to the respondent for fresh assessment. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register within 30 days. The quashed orders were to be treated as addendums to the show cause notices. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was then to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, ensuring the petitioner was heard, preferably within three months. The issue of whether the notices were properly served on the GST common portal was not explicitly decided, but the court's action implies a recognition of the petitioner's grievance regarding awareness.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable on grounds of latches and being time-barred, considering the Supreme Court's decisions in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur? (Question of law) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner was unaware of the notices preceding the impugned orders as they were posted on the GST common portal, preventing them from participating in the show cause proceedings. Therefore, the writ petitions should be allowed. Respondent's argument: The writ petitions are hopelessly time-barred and suffer from latches, making them liable for dismissal, citing the Supreme Court judgments mentioned above. The appellate remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments is also time-barred.