Cape Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court set aside the impugned assessment orders. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they were willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections. The respondent did not raise a serious objection to this proposal. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the admitted tax and 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. Upon compliance, the impugned assessment order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would submit their objections within six weeks. The respondent was then to consider these objections, pass orders in accordance with law, and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where there is a procedural irregularity in service and a genuine request for a final opportunity to be heard, coupled with a willingness to deposit a portion of the disputed tax, the Court may grant such an opportunity to ensure fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice, even if statutory appeal periods have elapsed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Cape Infrastructure Private Limited, filed a batch of writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (ST), Nagercoil (Rural) for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the show cause notices and assessment orders as they were uploaded in the "Additional Notices" tab of the GST portal, not the "View Notices and Orders" tab. They also cited a director's hospitalization as a reason for not responding. The respondent argued that the petitions were filed beyond the statutory appeal period and that notices were sent via registered post with acknowledgment cards. The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a final opportunity to present their objections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders, issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not properly served with the show cause notices and orders, which were allegedly uploaded only in the 'Additional Notices' tab of the GST portal, contrary to the petitioner's expectation of them being in the 'View Notices and Orders' tab? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-receipt of the show cause notices and impugned orders was due to their improper upload location on the GST portal, rendering them unaware of the proceedings. They also cited a director's medical emergency as a contributing factor to their inability to respond. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the statutory period for filing an appeal. They asserted that the notices and orders were not only uploaded but also sent via registered post and duly served on the petitioner, evidenced by acknowledgment cards.