Tvl. Shree Vinayaga vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be granted one opportunity to explain their case on merits. The impugned assessment order dated 12.05.2023 was quashed. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission that they had a fair case on merits and the Court's discretion to allow a procedural leniency. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the quashed order would be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was then directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, expected to be completed within three months. The ratio is that procedural lapses, if not willful and if a fair case on merits is presented, can be condoned by granting an opportunity to be heard, subject to certain conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Shree Vinayaga Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2020-2021. The impugned order confirmed the demand proposed in a notice dated 09.01.2023, as the petitioner failed to file a timely reply. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain their case on merits, while the respondent argued that the writ petition was devoid of merit, citing Supreme Court decisions. The petitioner requested the assessment order be quashed and the respondent be directed to redo the assessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to explain their case on merits, despite failing to file a timely reply to the show cause notice, considering their claim of having a fair case on merits? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they have a fair case on merits and should be given one opportunity to explain their position. They did not rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 44. Furthermore, the respondent argued that any appeal before the Appellate Commissioner would be time-barred, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.