Parvathi Traders vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of three personal hearings under Section 73 could not be accepted, as the records indicated that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings by appearing in person and filing a manual reply. However, the Court found the petitioner's submission regarding failing to notice the posting of the order on the web portal to be plausible, and acknowledged that the petitioner might have a case on merits. Since the statutory appeal period had lapsed, the Court, to rescue the petitioner, permitted them to file a statutory appeal within fifteen days from the receipt of the order. This liberty was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash as pre-deposit within the same period. If complied with, the Deputy Appellate Commissioner was directed to admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits, without reference to the question of limitation. The Court did not decide the merits of the case itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Parvathi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin, under Section 73 of the GST enactment for the tax period 2018-2019. The assessment order followed a notice DRC-01 dated 31.01.2024, to which the petitioner had filed a manual reply on 28.02.2024 and appeared before the respondent. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without granting three mandatory personal hearings. The petitioner also claimed to have failed to notice the posting of the order on the web portal, and that the statutory appeal period had lapsed on 28.08.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 29.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactment, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting three personal hearings to the petitioner for the tax period 2018-2019? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without adhering to the mandatory requirement of granting three personal hearings under Section 73 of the GST enactment. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's counsel did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim regarding personal hearings, but the Court noted from the records that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings by appearing in person and filing a manual reply. The respondent did not file a formal counter affidavit.