Tvl. Kalaimagal Stores vs. The Deputy Tax Officer

Held

The Court decided to grant the petitioner one opportunity to explain their case afresh before the respondent. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner failed to participate in the show cause proceedings and the respondent raised valid points regarding non-compliance and potential time-barring, a lenient approach would be taken. The impugned assessment order was quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from their Electronic Cash Register. The quashed order would be treated as an addendum to the earlier show cause notice. The petitioner was given 30 days from the receipt of the order to file a reply. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within two months, ensuring the petitioner was heard before finalization. The ratio is that a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can grant a fresh opportunity for assessment even if statutory remedies are not availed or procedural lapses occur, subject to certain conditions like partial deposit of disputed tax.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Kalaimagal Stores, represented by its Partner, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 18, 2023, passed by the Deputy Tax Officer for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner contended that they failed to participate in the show cause proceedings that preceded the impugned order, despite notices being served through GST portals. This failure led to an adverse order. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and requested a fresh assessment. The respondent argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's non-participation and potential time-barring of any statutory appeal, citing Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to participate in the show cause proceedings, is entitled to a fresh opportunity for assessment, despite the respondent's contention of non-compliance and potential time-barring of appeals? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued for a fresh opportunity to explain their case, implying that their failure to participate was due to not noticing the GST portal communications. They sought to quash the impugned order and have the assessment redone. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the writ petition should be dismissed, citing the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and the principle of time-barring of appeals as per Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur.