M/S. Indian Spices vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court partially came to the rescue of the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. The Court held that the petitioner must deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already deposited at the time of filing appeals. This entire amount is to be paid in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. If this condition is met, the impugned orders will be quashed, and the petitioner will have to file replies to the original notices within the stipulated time, treating the impugned orders as addendums. The first respondent will then pass fresh orders within six months. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in the writ petition being dismissed in limine. The Court also emphasized that the petitioner must file necessary documents and cooperate in the fresh proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Indian Spices, filed five writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 16.06.2023 and consequential rejection orders of appeals by the second respondent, dated 15.11.2024 and 29.11.2024. These challenges pertained to the tax periods 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The assessment orders were passed pursuant to notices issued after an inspection on 09.06.2022. The petitioner had replied to notices for most periods but not for 2022-23. Appeals filed against the assessment orders were rejected in limine by the Appellate Commissioner due to a delay of 68 days beyond the condonable period under Section 107 of the GST enactments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders and consequential rejection orders are liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, violating principles of natural justice, particularly the opportunity for personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders passed by the respondents were without merit and that there was a manifest violation of the principles of natural justice as they did not get an opportunity to file documents to substantiate their case. They sought to quash the orders and for a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner had slept over their rights, and therefore, the appeals were rightly dismissed. They relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE and CCE and Customs Vs. Hongo India (P) Limited, asserting that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioner could not expect the court to rescue them after such delay.