JST Automations Robotic Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court in JST Automations Robotic Vs Deputy State Tax Officer examined a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 25 April 2024, which arose from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 dated 28 December 2023 for the tax period between April 2018 and March 2019. The petitioner sought relief despite not having filed an appeal or a rectification application within the statutory limitation period under the GST law.
The impugned assessment order indicated that the petitioner had not filed a reply to the SCN and had not participated in the assessment proceedings, leading to the confirmation of tax demand. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the default occurred due to inadvertence and requested that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to substantiate the case, stating that the demand was confirmed solely due to non-response to the SCN.
In contrast, the government advocate contended that the writ petition lacked merit and was barred by limitation. Citing the Supreme Court rulings in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (2008) 3 SCC 70, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 791, and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., 2020 SCC Online SC 440, the respondent argued that once the period prescribed for appeal or rectification expired, neither could be entertained. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to support its case, providing an additional ground for dismissal.
