Pandiarajan Vivek vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court found no merit in the petitioner's submission that the departure from Section 73 to Section 74 automatically violated principles of natural justice. The Court noted that a finding of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax is a condition precedent for invoking Section 74, and this requires examination by the adjudicating authority. However, considering the petitioner's submission regarding technical glitches and their willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court decided to grant a final opportunity. The impugned order of assessment was to be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks and submit their objections along with supporting documents within four weeks. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to consider the objections and pass orders in accordance with law after affording a hearing. If the deposit or objections were not filed within the stipulated periods, the impugned order would stand revived. The Court expressly did not decide on the merits of the original dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, Pandiarajan Vivek, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.12.2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural (East). The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act), but the final adjudication order was passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, which has different ingredients. This, the petitioner argued, violated principles of natural justice as they were not put on notice regarding the change in the invoked section. The respondent submitted that the petitioner had not filed any objections and had also missed the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal, which was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, when the show cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, violates the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not put on notice about the change in the invoked provision? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the ingredients for invoking Section 73 and Section 74 of the TNGST Act are distinct. Issuing an order under Section 74 without a corresponding show cause notice or opportunity to address the grounds for invoking Section 74 constitutes a violation of natural justice. They relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024). The petitioner also cited technical glitches in the GST portal and the learning curve for assessees as reasons for their inability to respond promptly. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner had not filed any objections and had also filed an appeal beyond the statutory period, which was rejected.