Tvl Sri Valliamman Enterprises Represented By Its vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Sri Valliamman Enterprises, challenged an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Karur, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash the order as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They also requested the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order following CBIC Circular No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. The petitioner had apparently pursued rectification before approaching the High Court, and the time for filing a statutory appeal had expired. The judgment notes that the petitioner appears to have paid the substantial amount of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was appealable and that the time for filing the appeal had expired. It noted that the petitioner had spent time pursuing rectification. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal without reference to the limitation period, provided the petitioner paid the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount. All contentions of the petitioner were left open for consideration by the appellate authority. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order or the petitioner's claim regarding the circular.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order, notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was defective, lacking proper reasoning and potentially passed without jurisdiction. They argued for the quashing of the order and a fresh assessment in line with the specified CBIC circular. The petitioner also highlighted their efforts in pursuing rectification and sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that both sides were heard, but it does not explicitly detail the arguments presented by the respondent (State Tax Officer).