Quashed

Tvl.Balaguru Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC11 Jul 2024WP(MD)/15372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an impugned GST assessment order dated 26.12.2023. Balancing the petitioner's age and health with revenue interests, the court quashed the order, directed a 10% security deposit, and ordered the respondent to pass a fresh order after affording a hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned assessment order. Direction to deposit 10% of disputed tax and file a composite reply within 30 days. Direction to respondent to pass a fresh order within two months after gra

Tvl.Balaguru Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.15372 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.15372 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13473 & 13474 of 2024

¶7

Tvl.Balaguru Traders, Represented by its Proprietor B.Guna Seelan. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Virudhunagar -II Assessment Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in case ID No.GSTIN/33AUNPG1106E1Z9/2017-18, dated 26.12.2023, quash the same an further direct the respondent to pass order afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file their objections with supporting documents.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.S.Raja Jeya Chandra Paul

¶12

For respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.15372 of 2024

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶19

The petitioner, is a senior citizen and a dealer, registered under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, is before this Court challenging the impugned assessment order dated 26.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 bearing reference in Case ID No. GSTIN/33AUNPG1106E1Z9/2017-18.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to notice the notices that preceded the impugned order and therefore, did not respond the same.

¶21

It is submitted that for the same reason also, the petitioner did not file appeal before the Appellate Commissioner in time.

¶22

It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order after the recovery proceedings were initiated.

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.15372 of 2024

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 78 years and he is under treatment from 15.03.2024 for frequent loss of conscious, memory with giddiness, breathlessness, CVA, cardiac and bronchial asthma. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has submitted a Medical Certificate dated 30.05.2024.

¶27

The above submission is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, on the ground that the Writ Petition is hopelessly time barred and therefore, liable to be dismissed, on account of latches, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 440.

¶28

It is submitted that the appellate remedy is also time barred in terms of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.15372 of 2024

¶32

submitted that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

I am of the view that the interest of the petitioner and the revenue can be balanced, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

The petitioner shall file a composite reply with the respondent with in a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with the said deposit.

¶35

The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.

¶36

The respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard either in person or through his representative.

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.15372 of 2024

¶40

This Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Virudhunagar -II Assessment Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶42

11.07.2024