Tvl. Uma Electronics vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2 /

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Uma Electronics, represented by its Proprietrix Vadivel Uma Maheswari, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 29.09.2023 and a consequential summary order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 30.09.2023, issued by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, for the tax period 2019-20. These orders followed a Show Cause Notice dated 14.12.2022. The petitioner had not availed the opportunity for a personal hearing. The writ petition was filed on 25.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner stated that 48% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit 100% of the disputed tax after deducting the amount already recovered.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.09.2023 and the summary order dated 30.09.2023. The Court remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing 100% of the disputed tax in cash from its Electronic Cash Register, after deducting the amount already recovered. This deposit is to be made within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, with the recovery subject to verification. The petitioner is also required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.12.2022, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent is directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court held that in case of non-compliance by the petitioner, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order. The ratio is that in exceptional circumstances, where a petitioner demonstrates willingness to comply with stringent conditions like pre-depositing the entire disputed tax, a High Court may entertain a writ petition even after the expiry of the statutory appeal period to ensure fairness in proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders when the statutory appeal period under Section 107 of the GST enactments has expired, and if so, under what conditions? The petitioner argued that despite the expiry of the appeal period, the Court should grant relief because a significant portion of the disputed tax (48%) had already been recovered, and the petitioner was willing to deposit the entire disputed tax amount (100%) after accounting for the recovery, to facilitate a de novo adjudication. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against entertaining the writ petition on merits, but notice was taken and the matter proceeded to hearing.