Tvl Ganga Traders vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

In W.P.(MD) No.12809 of 2024, the Court held that while the petitioner had not made out a case for challenging the assessment order on its merits, liberty should be granted to file a statutory appeal. The Court directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) to entertain the appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 for the year 2017-18, without reference to the limitation period, provided the petitioner complies with other requirements of Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and files the appeal within 30 days of receiving the order. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's claim of unawareness and the possibility of a case on merits. The ratio is that High Courts can grant liberty to file statutory appeals out of time in writ proceedings, especially when there's a claim of unawareness and potential merits, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements. In W.P.(MD) No.12810 of 2024, the Court held that the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 for the year 2019-20 should be quashed and the case remitted back to the respondent. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days, treating the quashed order as an addendum, and the respondent to pass a speaking order on merits within three months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The ratio is that in cases of procedural lapses by the assessee, a High Court can quash an order and remit the matter for fresh consideration, especially when the assessee agrees to a partial deposit and assures future compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, TVL.Ganga Traders, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 29.12.2023 for the year 2017-18 and 04.07.2023 for the year 2019-20, both issued by the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin-1 Circle. In the first petition (W.P.(MD) No.12809 of 2024), the petitioner contended they were unaware of the assessment order for 2017-18 until a recovery notice was issued on 26.04.2024, and had failed to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed time. In the second petition (W.P.(MD) No.12810 of 2024), the petitioner had neither replied to the show cause notice nor attended the personal hearing for the 2019-20 assessment year. The Court suo motu impleaded the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) as the second respondent in the first petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.12809 of 2024 should be granted liberty to file a statutory appeal against the assessment order dated 29.12.2023 for the year 2017-18, despite the expiry of the limitation period, considering their claim of unawareness and potential merits? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner was unaware of the assessment order until a recovery notice was issued, and therefore, should be allowed to file a statutory appeal out of time. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the assessment order dated 04.07.2023 for the year 2019-20 in W.P.(MD) No.12810 of 2024 should be quashed and the matter remitted back, given the petitioner's submission to deposit 10% of the disputed tax and their failure to respond to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner will deposit 10% of the disputed tax, and the matter should be reconsidered. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.