2023 (12) TMI 822 - HC - GST

Direction to pay a tax due along with penalty - petitioner did not file reply to the said show cause notice in time, and due to non-filing of reply, the respondent passed the impugned order - HELD THAT - It is no doubt true that the petitioner is a taxypayer under section 10 of the Act and as per said section, the petitioner need not file GSTR 3B and filing of returns under GSTR 4 is suffice and accordingly, the petitioner filed GSTR 4, however, with a delay. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner, being a Lady Proprietress and due to reverse of fortune, she was met with heavy loss, which resulted in closure of her business and due to wrong advice of the Auditor, she was not in a position to file returns in time and also not able to reply to the show cause notice owing to her ill-health, this Court in the interest of justice is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner for filing her reply and thereafter, the respondent shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh assessment - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017 for the AY 2019-20, directing payment of tax due along with penalty. The main issue revolved around the petitioner's failure to reply to a show cause notice due to business closure and ill-health, leading to the impugned order.

Judgment Details:

*Issue 1: Failure to reply to show cause notice*
The petitioner, a registered dealer, faced a show cause notice after a surprise inspection revealed defects. The petitioner, a Lady Proprietress, cited heavy losses and wrong advice from an Auditor for delayed filings. The respondent, a Quasi Judicial Authority, issued the impugned order based on defects identified by Intelligence Wing Officials. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's situation and granted an opportunity for fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a proper reply.

*Issue 2: Compliance with tax filing modes*
The petitioner opted for a composite term mode under Section 10 of the Act, eliminating the need for GSTR 3B filings. Despite delays, the petitioner eventually filed returns under GSTR 4. The Court recognized the unique circumstances of the petitioner, including business closure and ill-health, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh assessment.

*Separate Judgment:*
Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy presided over the case, allowing the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order, and remanding the matter back to the respondent for fresh assessment. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice within 30 days, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner.