Tvl Saratha Fancy A TO Z vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding time bar and laches, exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner, finding that the petitioner may have a case on merits. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 23.01.2024. As a condition for this relief, the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within 30 days. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the preceding show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, and the respondent was to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within two months thereafter, ensuring the petitioner was heard. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment itself, focusing on procedural fairness.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Saratha Fancy A to Z, represented by its Proprietor M.Selvakumar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Thirupathur Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2019-20. The impugned order was preceded by notices ASMT-10 dated 05.04.2022, GST DRC 01A dated 23.08.2022, and GST DRC 01 dated 28.10.2022. The petitioner claimed to be a small-scale operator unaware of the notices posted on the GST common portal and the impugned order itself. The respondent contended that the writ petition was time-barred and barred by laches, citing Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on grounds of laches and time bar, considering the petitioner's claim of unawareness of portal notices and the impugned order, and the respondent's reliance on Supreme Court precedents like Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, a small-scale operator, was genuinely unaware of the notices and the final order communicated through the GST common portal. Respondent's contention: The writ petition is hopelessly time-barred and suffers from laches, making it liable for dismissal, as per established Supreme Court judgments regarding the availability of alternative remedies and the principle of delay.