Tvl. Abj Agency vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court held that the petitioner deserved a fair chance to respond to the notices in view of the peculiar circumstances, specifically noting that the demand was earlier dropped by an order dated 07.06.2024. Although the petitioner failed to respond to the notices preceding the impugned order, the Court found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the petitioner one opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits. This was subject to the petitioner filing a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 19.03.2024 and depositing 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously after hearing the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.ABJ Agency, represented by its Proprietor S.Anthoniraj, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Devakottai Assessment Circle, Sivagangai. This order confirmed a demand proposed in DRC 01 dated 19.03.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner admitted failure to reply to the notices and participate in the personal hearing. The petitioner believed the dispute was settled after a reply was filed on 17.12.2021 to notices dated 30.11.2021, and that a subsequent order dated 07.06.2024 in ASMT 12, issued under Rule 99(3) of the GST Rules, 2017, had dropped the demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's failure to respond to notices and the prior order dropping the demand? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they failed to notice the notices preceding the impugned order and assumed the demand was settled due to a prior order (ASMT 12 dated 07.06.2024) which dropped the demand. They relied on the fact that the demand was previously dropped, implying no further action was warranted. Respondent's contentions: The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, and therefore, the Writ Petition should be dismissed.