Subramanian Sambantham vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST), Appeal

Held

The Court held that the issuance of two separate orders by different authorities for the same demand and tax period under the GST enactment was improper and resulted in an overlap. Consequently, both impugned orders, dated 17.02.2025 and 26.02.2025, were quashed. The Court remitted the cases back to the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukottai, to pass a consolidated order. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply to the show cause notices within 30 days of receiving the order and to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in W.P.(MD) No.21455 of 2025. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to issue a consolidated notice addressing the defects in both previous notices and to endeavor to pass a fresh order within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also directed that upon the petitioner's deposit of 25% of the disputed tax, the bank attachment would be automatically lifted. The impugned orders were to be treated as corrigenda to the respective show cause notices.

Facts

The petitioner, Subramanian Sambantham, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the State Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner (ST) of Pudukottai for the financial year 2021-22. The petitioner had appealed these orders before the appellate Commissioner, but the appeals were rejected at the preliminary stage for being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, including the condonable period under Section 107 of the GST enactment. The petitioner is now before the High Court. The court noted that one order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 23.10.2024, while the other order was based on a show cause notice dated 03.02.2025, indicating a potential overlap and issuance of two separate orders for the same demand and period by different authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondents are illegal and not in accordance with law, particularly concerning the issuance of two separate orders for the same demand and period by different authorities. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing for fresh assessment proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were illegal and not in accordance with law. They argued that the issuance of two separate orders for the same tax period and demand by different authorities was improper. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment after being provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue). However, the initial rejection of appeals by the appellate Commissioner suggests the respondents relied on the statutory time limits for filing appeals.