Tvl.Tcrp Constructions vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and the consequential attachment notice. The case was remitted back to the second respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash into their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the original show cause notice dated April 16, 2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The second respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents were at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition had been dismissed. The second respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.TCRP Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order-in-original dated July 25, 2025, passed by the second respondent (State Tax Officer), which confirmed a show cause notice issued on April 16, 2025, in the absence of a reply. This was followed by an attachment notice dated August 4, 2026, issued by the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner). The petitioner acknowledged that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, as the writ petition was filed on August 24, 2026. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order and consequential attachment notice are liable to be quashed on grounds of illegality, lack of merit, and violation of principles of natural justice, particularly given the expiry of the statutory appeal period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were illegal and in violation of natural justice. While not explicitly stating arguments against the merits of the assessment itself, the petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case. They offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication, indicating a willingness to address the demand. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their participation in accepting notice and appearing before the court implies their stance to defend the impugned orders. The judgment notes the expiry of the appeal period, which would typically be a point raised by the revenue to dismiss the petition.