Renga Plastic vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Renga Plastic, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.11.2025, issued by the State Tax Officer (1st respondent). This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 15.09.2025, requiring the petitioner to reply with documentary evidence within 30 days. The petitioner was also issued reminders on 16.10.2025, 01.11.2025, and 12.11.2025, calling for a reply and personal hearing. The petitioner attended the personal hearing but did not file a reply or provide reasons for the delay, leading to the impugned order. The tax period under dispute is 2021-22. The petitioner sought a direction to re-do the assessment proceedings.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply to the show cause notice. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within thirty days of receiving the order and to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 15.09.2025 along with supporting documents. The impugned order dated 24.11.2025 was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. If the petitioner complied, the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, was to be vacated subject to compliance. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 25% deposit was made and the petitioner had no other arrears for different tax periods. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to be heard can be granted even at the writ stage, subject to pre-deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order passed by the State Tax Officer is liable to be quashed due to procedural irregularities or lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, as contemplated under the relevant GST provisions? The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication and have made an endorsement to this effect. They sought a direction for the respondent to re-do the assessment proceedings for the year 2021-22. The respondents, represented by the State of Tamil Nadu, did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's plea for a fresh adjudication, given the petitioner's willingness to comply with certain conditions.