2020 (4) TMI 169 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issuance of SCN challanged - Error in the returns - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned notice for three reasons. One is it is in the nature of SCN. There are no exceptional circumstances for interference at the SCN stage - The second reason is that writ petitioner in any case availed of the hearing in person, orders are awaited and the third reason is that there is latches on the part of the writ petitioner as the impugned notice is dated 25.02.2019, but the instant writ petition has been filed in this Court only on 29.07.2019, more than five months later that too after availing opportunity of being heard in person. Tthis Court is of the considered view that challenge to the impugned notice is bereft of merits - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to a notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The main writ petition challenged a notice dated 25.02.2019, issued under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The notice raised concerns about erroneous tax credit claims made by the writ petitioner. It also indicated the intention to levy penalties under the relevant statutory provisions. The writ petitioner, previously registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, was given an opportunity to be heard in person regarding the claims made in the notice. The writ petitioner availed this opportunity and presented its case before the first respondent.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the petitioner had presented its case during the personal hearing, and the Revenue counsel contended that the writ petitioner had no valid grounds to challenge the notice. The court, considering the circumstances, declined to interfere with the notice for several reasons. Firstly, the notice was in the nature of a 'show cause notice,' and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting interference at this stage. Secondly, the writ petitioner had already participated in the personal hearing, and the orders were pending. Thirdly, there was a significant delay between the date of the notice and the filing of the writ petition, indicating latches on the part of the writ petitioner.

The court referred to the Kunisetty Satyanarayana case and highlighted that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised to quash a show-cause notice unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. In this case, the court found that the challenge to the notice lacked merit and dismissed the writ petition. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.