2024 (7) TMI 608 - HC - GST

Tax Case Dismissed: HC Directs Appeal Filing for 2018-2022 TNGST Orders, Offers Pre-Deposit Waiver with 10% Tax Payment.

M/s. MPS & Co. represented through its Managing Partner, P. Selvakumar Versus The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), The Assistant Commissioner (ST), FAC, The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, The Branch Manager, Madurai

The HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the impugned orders for assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 under the TNGST Act, 2017, citing lack of ... Jurisdiction to issue SCN - Levy of interest and penalty - sum and substance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders, which emanated from the notices issued to the petitioner in the respective DRC 01A and DRC 01, are without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed - HELD THAT:- There is no merit in the present writ petitions challenging the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner has to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The Writ Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The mandatory requirement of pre-deposit shall stand waived if the petitioner has already paid 10% or more of the tax for the respective assessment years during inspection. Issues:Challenge to impugned orders for assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 under TNGST Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned orders passed for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22, alleging that statements were obtained from the petitioner under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, without proper understanding. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice did not allege suppression of fact to invoke a larger period of limitation. Moreover, the petitioner contended that penalties and interest at usurious rates were unjustly imposed, leading to a plea for quashing the impugned orders. The defense emphasized that the orders, based on notices issued in DRC 01A and DRC 01, lacked jurisdiction, citing legal precedents to support the argument.The petitioner's counsel referred to several legal decisions to bolster the case, including judgments like Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise, and others. The arguments centered on the lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders, urging for their annulment.On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents contended that despite admitting tax liability, the petitioner failed to pay the entire tax amount, leading to the issuance of notices. It was highlighted that only a portion of the tax liability was settled, necessitating the Department's intervention. The respondents pointed out that the petitioner had the option to appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, suggesting an alternative remedy.After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the writ petitions challenging the impugned orders lacked merit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 if aggrieved. The judgment dismissed the writ petitions but granted the petitioner the liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days, waiving the pre-deposit requirement if at least 10% of the tax for the respective assessment years had been paid during inspection. No costs were imposed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.