Tvl Fathima Bricks vs. The State Tax Officer / The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the respondent, was illegal and devoid of merits as it was made ex parte in the absence of a reply to the show cause notice. Following a consistent view taken by the Court in similar circumstances, the Court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days of receiving the order, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a final order expeditiously, preferably within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit. The respondent was also instructed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. Failure by the petitioner to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition had been dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Fathima Bricks, represented by its Proprietor Jesu Arockiamary, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer / The Commercial Tax Officer, for the tax period 2020-21. This order was issued pursuant to a show cause notice dated 23.11.2024 under Section 73(1) of the GST enactment. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed ex parte, without considering any reply to the show cause notice. The total tax liability was Rs. 5,28,546/-, of which Rs. 2,46,083/- had been recovered, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,82,463/- in dispute. The respondent confirmed that a significant portion of the demand had been recovered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 17.02.2025, passed ex parte without considering a reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the GST enactment, is illegal and devoid of merits? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice, rendering it illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioner sought a direction to redo the assessment proceedings. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, confirmed that a substantial part of the tax demand had been recovered, which was more than 50% of the disputed amount. The respondent did not present any specific argument against the petitioner's claim regarding the ex parte nature of the order.