Tvl.M.Shanthi vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. M. Shanthi, Proprietrix, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Adjudication Assessment Order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Sivagangai Assessment Circle, under Section 63 of the TNGST Act for the assessment year 2019-2020. The order confirmed the proposal in a Show Cause Notice dated 25.07.2022, issued in Form ASMT-14, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 21.09.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner agreed to pre-deposit 100% of the disputed tax demand.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Adjudication Assessment Order dated 06.12.2022 and the consequential summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 100% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.07.2022, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondent was at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The respondent was also mandated to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any further order. The issue of limitation for appeal was implicitly overcome by the Court's direction for de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 100% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication, indicating a willingness to comply with financial obligations. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly record any arguments against entertaining the petition on merits, given the petitioner's offer to pre-deposit the entire demand.