Tvl Cape Infrastructure (P) LTD vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. CAPE Infrastructure (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer. This order was based on an earlier best judgment order issued in Form GST ASMT-13 dated 07.06.2023 for the month of March 2023, under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the best judgment order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction. The assessment was made because the petitioner failed to file their returns. Subsequently, the petitioner filed their returns on 08.09.2023.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the assessment order dated 07.06.2023 was passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act due to the petitioner's failure to file returns. However, the petitioner subsequently filed their returns on 08.09.2023. The Court acknowledged that while statutes stipulate timelines for filing returns, courts have held these timelines to be non-mandatory. Since the returns were filed after the initial assessment order, the earlier assessment order dated 07.06.2023 is deemed to have been withdrawn. The subsequent order dated 20.02.2025 was based on the earlier order. As the earlier order was quashed, the consequential order automatically stands nullified. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the best judgment order passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the month of March 2023, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the best judgment order dated 07.06.2023 was flawed and lacked proper reasoning. They further contended that the subsequent order dated 20.02.2025, which was based on the earlier order, should also be quashed. The petitioner also submitted that even though the returns were filed late, the statute's timeline for filing returns is not mandatory, and courts have held this position. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claims in the provided judgment text.