Sulochana M vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, passed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification, was liable to be quashed. The Court found that there were indications that the rejection suffered from a non-application of mind, particularly in view of the earlier order passed on 28.12.2023 and the fact that the petitioner had filed a reply to the notice and an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The Court reasoned that the respondent should have considered these aspects before passing the rejection order. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 19.03.2025 and remitted the matter back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The Court also directed that recovery proceedings pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2025 be kept in abeyance pending the fresh order and that the petitioner be heard before any order is passed in recovery proceedings. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sulochana.M, challenged two orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai. The first order, dated 04.02.2025, was in Form GST DRC 07, and the second, dated 19.03.2025, was passed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification of the first order. The tax period in dispute is 2017-2018. The petitioner had previously received a notice (Form GST DRC 01) on 30.09.2023, which led to an order on 28.12.2023. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice and subsequently an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, which was acknowledged on 16.09.2024. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the rectification application under Section 161 suffered from non-application of mind.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 19.03.2025, passed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification, is liable to be quashed for being passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection order under Section 161 suffered from a non-application of mind, especially in light of the earlier order dated 28.12.2023 and the pending appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the respondent authority failed to consider the previous proceedings and the reply filed by the petitioner. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, made submissions which were considered by the Court. The specific arguments of the respondent are not detailed in the judgment.