Peter Arokeyathasan vs. The Assistant Commissioner St

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's reply dated 07.02.2024, acknowledged on 13.02.2024, had not been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order dated 08.10.2024. The Court noted that the impugned order only referred to a reply dated 27.03.2023 to the notice in DRC 01A. The dispute appeared to arise from a change in the rate of tax from 12% to 18% due to Notification No.3/2022-CT(R) dated 13.07.2022. Following a precedent where the Court had come to the rescue of similarly situated persons by quashing assessment orders on terms, the Court decided to quash the impugned order. The reasoning was that the failure to consider the petitioner's reply rendered the order procedurally flawed. The operative directions were to quash the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Credit Ledger within 30 days. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice, with the quashed order treated as an addendum, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. The Court clarified that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Peter Arokeyathasan, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax period 2022-2023. The impugned order was preceded by several notices, including DRC 01A dated 17.03.2023 and DRC 01 dated 10.01.2024. The petitioner contended that a reply dated 07.02.2024 to the DRC 01A notice, acknowledged on the web portal on 13.02.2024, was not considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. The respondent argued that the petitioner had delayed in raising the issue, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for failing to consider the petitioner's reply dated 07.02.2024 to the notice in DRC 01A dated 17.03.2023, thereby rendering it non-speaking and illegal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their reply dated 07.02.2024, which was duly acknowledged on the web portal on 13.02.2024, was not considered by the respondent. This failure to consider a material submission makes the impugned order cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order considering their reply. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, contended that the petitioner had delayed in agitating the issue and had "slept over their rights." They relied on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.