Tvl. Lakshana Gogas vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the petitioner deserves a chance to redress their grievance. The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 was quashed and directed to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices. The petitioner was granted liberty to deposit 10% of the disputed tax from their Electronic Cash Ledger within 30 days. Concurrently, the petitioner must file a consolidated reply to the show cause notices and the addendum within the same 30-day period. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must cooperate with the respondents and comply with the pre-deposit and filing requirements within the stipulated time. Failure to comply would result in the revocation of the liberty granted, allowing the respondents to proceed with the impugned order as if this order had not been passed. The Court's reasoning was to provide a procedural opportunity to the petitioner, acknowledging their claim of unawareness and the potential for miscalculation in the demand, while also ensuring a commitment from the petitioner through a partial pre-deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Lakshana Gogas, represented by its Proprietor R. Kalirajan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Dindigul Town Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner claims to be a small-time operator and stated that they failed to respond to several notices, including Form GST ASMT-10, Form GST DRC-01A, Form GST DRC-01, and personal hearing notices, due to unawareness. They only became aware of the impugned order in the first week of July 2024. The petitioner argued that the demands were confirmed based on VAT Act turnover by comparing inward and outward supplies without correlating opening balances, and requested an opportunity to explain their position.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to present their case despite failing to respond to the notices and show cause notices issued by the respondent authority for the assessment year 2017-2018? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, a small-time operator, was unaware of the notices and the impugned order due to their operational scale. They contend that the demands were incorrectly calculated by not correlating opening balances to the turnover under the VAT Act and GST regime. They seek a chance to explain their position. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is devoid of merits and should be dismissed, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440, and M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70, regarding the time-barring of appeals.