2024 (7) TMI 290 - HC - GST

Tax Assessment Challenged: Partial Relief Granted, Order Quashed, Case Remitted for Fresh Hearing with Conditional Tax Deposit

Tvl. SST & Co/Sethu Susila, Represented by its Proprietor Susila. Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (FAC), Tirunelveli.

HC partially allowed the Writ Petition challenging a tax assessment order. The court quashed the original order and remitted the case back to the tax ... Failure to notice the three personal hearing notices - seeking one more opportunity to explain the case - time barred appellate remedy - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given partial relief by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order. The writ petition is allowed. Issues:1. Challenge to impugned order dated 28.12.2023 issued by respondent for assessment year 2017-18.2. Failure to notice show cause notices and personal hearing notices.3. Time-barred nature of the Writ Petition and appellate remedy under TNGST Act, 2017.4. Relief sought by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the impugned order issued by the respondent for the assessment year 2017-18, confirming a demand for CGST, SGST, penalty, and interest. The petitioner, described as a small-time operator, claimed to have missed show cause notices and personal hearing notices posted on the GST common portal, seeking an opportunity to explain the case.2. The respondent, represented by the learned Government Advocate, contended that the Writ Petition was time-barred and should be dismissed due to latches, citing a Supreme Court decision. Reference was made to the time-barred nature of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as established in another Supreme Court case. The respondent argued for the dismissal of the Writ Petition based on these grounds.3. After considering arguments from both sides, the Court decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a specified amount of disputed tax to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register. The quashed impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the preceding show cause notice.4. The Court instructed the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order along with the required deposit. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within three months, subject to the deposit made by the petitioner. The petitioner was to be given a hearing before the fresh order was passed. The Writ Petition was allowed with the provided directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a consequence of the judgment.