Tvl. Sri S Subbiah And Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Sri.S.Subbiah & Company, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated May 31, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the year 2018-19. The petitioner stated that while they had responded to the show cause notice and participated in personal hearings, they only became aware of the final order when recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioner sought an opportunity to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, citing discrepancies in various GST returns (GSTR-07, GSTR-01, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-2A) as the basis of the dispute. The revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision to argue for the dismissal of the writ petition.
Held
The Court decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner. It held that the petitioner should be given liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai. Consequently, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, was impleaded suo motu as the second respondent. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within 30 days of receiving the order, along with a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax in cash. Upon compliance, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of it on merits within two months, without reference to the limitation period for filing the appeal. The reasoning appears to be a pragmatic approach to ensure that the petitioner gets a chance to ventilate their grievances before the appellate authority, despite the procedural lapse, by imposing conditions for pre-deposit and timely disposal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, despite the delay and the pendency of recovery proceedings, considering the petitioner's claim of not being aware of the assessment order until recovery actions commenced? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, to address the discrepancies in their GST returns. They emphasized their participation in earlier stages and sought an opportunity to pursue the appellate remedy. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the Additional Government Pleader, relied on the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others [(2008) 3 SCC 70] to contend that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed and no liberty should be granted to the petitioner.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned assessment order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2018-19 bearing reference in GSTIN – 33AAVFS5221L1ZS/2018-19. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order and participated in the personal hearings, the petitioner failed to note that the impugned order has been passed on 31.05.2023 and that the petitioner came to know about the same only after the Department initiated recovery proceedings. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to work out the remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, as the dispute is on account of the difference between GSTR-07 and GSTR-01, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B and GSTR-07 and GSTR-3B.
Opposing the above submissions, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (GST Appeal), Madurai is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent.
The petitioner shall file statutory appeal before the second respondent along with 25% of the disputed tax, as pre-deposit in cash through Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to such compliance, the second respondent shall entertain the appeal and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter, without reference to the limitation in filing appeal. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 03.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Assistant Commissioner(ST), Palani -1 Assessment Circle, Palani, Dindigul District.
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST Appeals) Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd and W.M.P(MD)No.12586 of 2024 03.07.2024 5/5 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.