Tvl.Habeeb Store vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding delay and latches, exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner, finding that the petitioner might have a case on merits. The impugned order dated 18.10.2023 was quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days, after which the respondent was to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months, ensuring the petitioner was heard. The issue of whether the writ petition was fundamentally time-barred and thus not maintainable was not definitively decided, as discretion was exercised on merits. The ratio is that even if there are procedural delays or latches, High Courts can exercise discretion to allow a case on merits, subject to certain conditions like deposit of a portion of the disputed tax, to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Habeeb Store, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, for the assessment year 2019-20. This order was preceded by notices in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 03.03.2022 and Form GST DRC 01 dated 19.04.2023. The petitioner claimed to be a small-scale operator unaware of the notices posted on the GST common portal and the impugned order. The respondent argued that the writ petition was time-barred due to the petitioner's latches and that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on grounds of latches and delay, considering the petitioner's alleged unawareness of notices and the impugned order posted on the GST common portal? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST regime). 2. Whether the impugned order dated 18.10.2023, passed for the assessment year 2019-20, is liable to be quashed and the assessment proceedings redone? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner, a small-scale operator, was unaware of the notices issued and the impugned order communicated through the GST common portal. They sought to quash the order and have the assessment proceedings redone. Respondent's contentions: The respondent argued that the writ petition was hopelessly time-barred due to the petitioner's latches, citing the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. They also contended that the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was time-barred, referencing Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others.