Gomathi Sankar vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 should be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent. The reasoning was that the order was passed without the petitioner's reply, and thus, one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner to provide a reply. This opportunity was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% at the time of filing the statutory appeal. The impugned order, once quashed, was to be treated as a corrigendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days, along with necessary documents. The respondent was then to pass fresh orders within 60 days thereafter. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

Facts

The petitioner, Gomathi Sankar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Shencottai Assessment Circle. This order confirmed proposals made in preceding notices to which the petitioner had not responded. The impugned order stated that the proposals were confirmed as per Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, attracting interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 74(1) for the year 2017-18. The petitioner also filed a statutory appeal beyond the limitation period, seeking condonation of delay. The High Court noted that the order was passed without the petitioner's reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent was justified in confirming the tax proposals, interest, and penalty without providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to respond to the show cause notices, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as it pertains to Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording him a proper opportunity to reply to the notices, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also highlighted that he had filed a statutory appeal with a delay, and the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others was cited regarding the condonation of delay. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a hearing, but the impugned order itself confirmed the proposals due to the petitioner's lack of response.