M/S. Ramakrishnan Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Ramakrishna Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Tuticorin-2 Circle, under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order directed the petitioner to pay determined tax, interest, and penalty for the period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the entire tax had already been paid and that the respondent authority should have scrutinized returns and digitally available data before issuing the order. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings despite multiple notices and show cause notices being issued, and that an appeal remedy was available. The respondent also highlighted a GST Council recommendation for an amnesty scheme extending the appeal filing deadline.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner claimed to have paid the entire tax, this was not established before the respondent authority. The respondent had issued notices and provided opportunities for personal hearing, which the petitioner failed to avail. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition directly. However, recognizing that the petitioner had an appeal remedy and that the time limit for filing appeals had been extended by the GST Council up to January 31, 2024, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court made no order as to costs. The issue of whether the impugned order was passed with improper calculation of GST was not decided on merits, but the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.05.2023, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for improper calculation of GST and failure to scrutinize available data? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 73). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the entire tax had been paid and no arrears were due. They contended that the respondent should have thoroughly scrutinized returns and data available through various digital portals (DGARM, ADVAIT, GSTN, E-Way Bill Portal) before passing the order. They also referred to GST Policy Wing guidelines advising against summoning documents already digitally visualized. Respondent's contentions: The respondent argued that defects were noted in the petitioner's returns, and despite notices and opportunities for personal hearing, the petitioner failed to appear. They asserted that an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Act was available. Furthermore, they cited a GST Council recommendation for an amnesty scheme under Section 148, extending the appeal filing deadline for orders under Sections 73 or 74 passed on or before March 31, 2023, up to January 31, 2024.