Tvl Milan Footwear vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that considering the petitioner's inability to appear for the personal hearing and respond to the notices due to medical reasons, the matter should be remanded back to the respondent authority for re-doing the assessment. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's claim of ill-health preventing timely response and the subsequent submission of supporting affidavits warranted a fresh look at the assessment. The principle established is that genuine medical incapacitation, supported by evidence, can be a ground for remanding a tax assessment proceeding to allow the assessee to present their case and evidence. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority with relevant documentary evidence on 24.09.2024 at 11:00 am. Failure to do so would result in the automatic restoration of the impugned order. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Milan Footwear, represented by its proprietor, M. Mohamed Imthiyaz, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Uthamapalayam Assessment Circle. The petitioner deals in footwear and vegetables. The impugned order levied tax on sales of vegetables, which the petitioner claims are exempt. The petitioner had previously responded to a GST ASMT-10 notice, stating the turnover in question pertained to exempt vegetable sales. Notices in DRC-01A were subsequently issued. The petitioner failed to respond to these notices due to ill-health, leading to the impugned order being passed on the premise that the claim for exemption on vegetable sales was unsupported by documentary evidence. The petitioner later obtained affidavits from vegetable vendors to support their claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly concerning the levy of tax on the sale of vegetables, which the petitioner claims are exempt under the GST regime? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order erroneously levied tax on the sale of vegetables, which are exempt from GST. The petitioner's inability to respond to the DRC-01A notices and attend the personal hearing was due to ill-health. Now, with supporting affidavits from vegetable vendors, the petitioner contends that the sales in question exclusively relate to exempt vegetables, and the order should be quashed. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Government Advocate, submitted that the affidavits provided by the petitioner require verification by the adjudicating authority.