Tvl. Sivan Hallow Bricks vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned assessment order dated 24.04.2024 and the consequential order in FORM GST DRC 07 dated 24.04.2024, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax confirmed in the impugned order within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings and approached the court after the appeal period expired, it is a consistent practice of the Court to provide relief in such circumstances, provided a portion of the disputed tax is deposited. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 10.11.2022 within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can grant relief by setting aside adverse orders if a substantial portion of the disputed tax is paid, even if the petitioner was remiss in earlier proceedings, to ensure a fair opportunity for adjudication. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment itself, as the quashing is conditional.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sivan Hallow Bricks, represented by its Proprietor Aravindan.S, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.04.2024 and a consequential order in FORM GST DRC 07 dated 24.04.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Kodumudi Assessment Circle, Karur, for the tax period 2020-2021. The impugned orders were preceded by notices in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 02.08.2023, Form GST DRC 01A dated 12.10.2023, and Form GST DRC 01 dated 10.11.2023. The petitioner failed to reply to notices for personal hearing and did not participate in the proceedings before the respondent prior to the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner approached the High Court long after the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order and consequential order dated 24.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of proper opportunity to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned orders, implying a challenge to the validity of the proceedings due to non-compliance with procedural requirements or an absence of a fair hearing, although specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text. The petitioner approached the court after the appeal period expired, suggesting a potential challenge to the order's merits or the process leading to it. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments against the petitioner's prayer. However, the court's direction implies that the respondent would have proceeded with recovery if the petitioner failed to comply with the court's conditional order.