M/S. Sun Scrapers vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's failure to respond to show cause notices, appear for personal hearings, and the belated filing of appeals, decided to grant relief considering the petitioner's deposit of 100% of the disputed tax for October and December 2023, and 10% for November 2023. The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 21.12.2024 and remitted the cases back to the first respondent for fresh orders on merits. The petitioner was directed to pay an additional 15% of the disputed tax for November 2023 within 30 days and file replies to the show cause notices within the same period, treating them as addendums. If these conditions were met, the first respondent was to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months. Failure to comply would allow respondents to proceed as if the writ petitions were dismissed in limine.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sun Scrapers, filed three writ petitions challenging orders dated 21.12.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (first respondent) and subsequent rejection orders dated 30.05.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal) (second respondent). These orders pertained to the assessment years 2023-24 for October, November, and December 2023. The petitioner admitted to not replying to the show cause notices preceding the orders and not appearing for personal hearings. Furthermore, the appeals filed before the second respondent were belated, exceeding the condonable period of limitation by 62 days. The second respondent rejected these appeals citing Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the first respondent and the rejection orders by the second respondent are liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, in light of the petitioner's failure to respond to show cause notices and appear for personal hearings, and the belated filing of appeals? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders and rejection orders were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and sought a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondents' Contention: The respondents relied on Supreme Court decisions in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE and CCE and Customs Vs. Hongo India (P) Limited to justify the rejection of the belated appeals.