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 subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the assessment order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The second respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. Failure to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondents to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court noted that the limitation period for appeal had expired but granted relief based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the demand.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.TCRP Constructions, represented by its Partner A.Krishnamoorthi, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order-in-original dated 15.11.2024 and a consequential attachment notice dated 04.08.2026. The assessment order was passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, confirming a proposal in a show cause notice dated 05.09.2024, purportedly in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The attachment notice was issued by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (ST). The petitioner filed the writ petition on 24.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and consequential attachment notice are liable to be quashed as illegal, devoid of merits, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, given that the petitioner claims no reply was filed to the show cause notice and the appeal period has expired? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders should be quashed. They contended that they were willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication and made an endorsement to this effect. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment regarding the merits of the petitioner's case or their stance on the quashing of the orders. However, their presence and notice of the writ petition indicate their opposition to the petitioner's prayer for quashing.