Tvl Maruthi Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner. While acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding time bar and laches, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh assessment proceedings. This relief was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 1,00,000/- from its Electronic Cash Register without prejudice to its rights in the de-novo proceedings. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the 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, preferably within three months, after hearing the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that in certain circumstances, even with procedural lapses by the petitioner, a fresh opportunity can be granted to ensure fairness, provided a reasonable deposit is made.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Maruthi Agency, represented by its partner B. Sumathi, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner was issued with notices ASMT 10 and DRC 01, and several personal hearing notices, but failed to respond or appear. The petitioner claimed to be a small operator unaware of the notices posted on the GST portal and sought an opportunity to explain their case. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing it was time-barred and barred by laches, citing Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-receipt of notices and lack of opportunity to be heard, despite the petitioner's failure to respond to statutory notices and personal hearing notices? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, being a small-time operator, was unaware of the notices posted on the GST common web portal and therefore seeks one opportunity to present their case, asserting they have a fair case. Respondent's contention: The writ petition is hopelessly time-barred and liable to be dismissed due to laches, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Furthermore, the appellate remedy is also time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others.