M/S Ktrr Pandian Paints And Electricals vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the GST enactments, should be quashed on terms. The reasoning was based on the principle that in similar circumstances, the Court had intervened to provide relief to petitioners by quashing orders. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established practice. The operative directions were that the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Following compliance, the petitioner must file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The respondent is then directed to pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months. Failure to comply with these conditions would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s KTRR Pandian Paints and Electricals, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mudukulathur Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a demand proposed in a Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024, issued under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments. The petitioner contended that they did not participate in the adjudication proceedings despite notices being posted on the web portal. The Court noted that the petitioner had not participated in the adjudication proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, confirming the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not provided an adequate opportunity to make submissions? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent to provide an opportunity to make submissions, implying a lack of proper opportunity. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments but implicitly defended the order by stating that notices were posted on the web portal. The judgment notes that the petitioner did not participate in the adjudication proceedings despite several notices being posted on the web portal.