Tvl. Spt And Co vs. The State Tax Officer - I

Held

The Court, following its previous orders in similar circumstances, decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The impugned assessment orders dated June 30, 2023, were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner complying with certain conditions. The petitioner was directed to pay a total of 25% of the disputed tax. This includes 10% already deposited at the time of filing the appeal and an additional 15% to be deposited along with their reply to the show cause notices. The petitioner must file their reply to the notices within 30 days of receiving the order. The first respondent is to pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, TVL SPT & Co, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated June 30, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer-I, Perambalur. The tax periods under challenge are 2020-21 (W.P.(MD) No.15175 of 2025) and 2018-19 (W.P.(MD) No.15176 of 2025). The petitioner had filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST), Trichy & Vellore Division, offline, beyond the condonable period prescribed under Section 107 of the GST enactments. Specifically, the appeal for 2020-21 was filed 27 days beyond the condonable period, and for 2018-19, it was filed 32 days beyond. The petitioner also did not participate in the show cause proceedings before the first respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should grant an opportunity to the petitioner to explain their case before the first respondent, considering the appeals were filed beyond the condonable period and the petitioner did not participate in the show cause proceedings? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain their case before the first respondent, acknowledging their non-participation in the show cause proceedings. They relied on previous orders of the Court in similar circumstances. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.