2024 (7) TMI 254 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - time limitation - petitioner failed to notice that the SCN, which were posted in the GST common portal - 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 10% 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. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 regarding GST assessment for the year 2017-18.
2. Petitioner's failure to notice show cause notices and personal hearing notices.
3. Argument of time bar and latches by the respondent.
4. Consideration of partial relief by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent.
5. Requirement for the petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax for fresh orders.
6. Timeline for the petitioner to file a reply and for the respondent to pass fresh orders.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 related to GST assessment for the year 2017-18. The respondent confirmed demands including input tax due, penalties, and interest payable. The petitioner, described as a small-time operator, claimed to have missed show cause notices and personal hearing notices, seeking an opportunity to explain the case.

2. The respondent argued that the writ petition was time-barred and should be dismissed due to latches, citing a Supreme Court decision. The respondent also contended that the appellate remedy was time-barred under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, referencing another Supreme Court case. The court considered these arguments along with submissions from both parties.

3. After hearing 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 for fresh orders. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax to the respondent's credit from its Electronic Cash Register.

4. The impugned order was quashed, with the court specifying that it should be treated as an addendum to the preceding show cause notice. The petitioner was instructed to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order copy along with the required deposit. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within three months, subject to the deposit. The petitioner's right to be heard before the order was emphasized.

5. The court allowed the writ petition with the mentioned directions and waived any costs associated with it. The connected miscellaneous petitions were consequently closed, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion.