Tvl. Wins Hardwares vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl WINS HARDWARRES, represented by its Proprietor Moses Winsely, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Thuckalay-1 Assessment Circle. The order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner sought to quash the order as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They also prayed for a fresh assessment order to be passed following CBIC Circular No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. The respondent is the State Tax Officer. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition as the appeal period had expired.

Held

The Court noted that the order under challenge was appealable, and the appeal period had expired. However, it observed that the delay was not inordinate and that the tax portion had already been recovered. The Court found that the petitioner had some arguable points to canvass. Considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, it shall be entertained without reference to limitation and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. No costs were awarded. The issue of whether the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction was not decided on merits but was implicitly addressed by allowing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the order under challenge suffers from multiple defects, including being cryptic, non-speaking, and passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant provisions. They contended that the order is illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought to rely on CBIC Circular No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023 for a fresh assessment. The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.