2025 (2) TMI 345 - HC - GST

Order-in-Original withdrawn as petitioner filed return within extended period under Section 62(2) of TNGST Act.

Sree Shiva Enterprises Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-I, O/o. Tamilnadu Commercial Taxes Department, Madurai

The HC ruled that the Order-in-Original issued by the respondent is deemed withdrawn because the petitioner filed the return within the extended period ... Challenge to order of assessment made in original and consequently to reimburse the amount deducted from the petitioner's account - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner did not file the valid return within the period as prescribed under sub-Section (2) of Section 62, but had filed the return within the period specified under the proviso to sub- Section (2) of Section 62. Therefore, the Order-in-Original is deemed to be withdrawn and the return filed by the petitioner would have to be assessed by the Assessing Officer viz., the respondent. In such view of the matter, the order made in original, impugned in this writ petition, is statutorily deemed to be withdrawn, in view of the return filed by the petitioner on 18.12.2023. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to take on record the valid return filed by the petitioner on 18.12.2023 and levy the penalty as provided under the proviso to sub- Section (2) of Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and process the same in the manner known to law. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are: Whether the Order-in-Original issued by the respondent should be deemed withdrawn upon the petitioner filing the return within the extended time period as per Section 62(2) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act). Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal against the order of the respondent, thus affecting the maintainability of the writ petition.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Withdrawal of Order-in-Original upon filing of return within extended period Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 62 of the TNGST Act. Initially, sub-Section (2) of Section 62 allowed for the filing of a valid return within 30 days. This was amended by Act 8/2023, extending the period to 60 days, with an additional 60 days provided under a proviso, subject to a late fee. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted that the petitioner, having filed the return within the extended period specified under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 62, is entitled to have the Order-in-Original deemed withdrawn. This interpretation aligns with the statutory provision that allows for such a withdrawal when returns are filed within the prescribed extended period. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner filed the return on 18.12.2023, which falls within the additional 60-day period allowed under the proviso to Section 62(2). The Court found that this filing was compliant with the amended provisions of the TNGST Act. Application of law to facts: By applying the amended Section 62(2) to the facts, the Court concluded that the Order-in-Original is statutorily deemed withdrawn due to the timely filing of the return by the petitioner. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner could pursue an alternative remedy through an appeal. However, the Court focused on the statutory provision that directly addressed the withdrawal of the Order-in-Original upon timely filing of the return. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Order-in-Original is deemed withdrawn and directed the respondent to process the return filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law.Issue 2: Availability of alternative remedy Relevant legal framework and precedents: The argument regarding the availability of an alternative remedy pertains to the general principle that writ petitions may not be maintainable if an efficacious alternative remedy exists. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court did not find it necessary to delve deeply into this argument, as the statutory provision under Section 62(2) directly addressed the issue at hand, rendering the question of alternative remedy moot in this context. Key evidence and findings: The Court focused on the statutory compliance by the petitioner rather than the procedural aspect of alternative remedies. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory provision directly to the facts, bypassing the need to consider the alternative remedy argument. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the respondent's argument but prioritized the statutory provision that directly resolved the issue. Conclusions: The Court effectively set aside the argument regarding alternative remedies by resolving the matter through statutory interpretation.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court held that 'the order made in original, impugned in this writ petition, is statutorily deemed to be withdrawn, in view of the return filed by the petitioner on 18.12.2023.' Core principles established: The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and provisions, specifically the extended filing period under Section 62(2) of the TNGST Act, which can lead to the withdrawal of an Order-in-Original. Final determinations on each issue: The Court directed the respondent to accept the return filed by the petitioner and process it according to the law, thereby resolving the dispute in favor of the petitioner.