Muhamed Ibrahim vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, Muhamed Ibrahim, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 16.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tirunelveli. This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 23.09.2025, requiring the petitioner to reply within 30 days. The respondent issued reminders on 27.10.2025, 13.11.2025, and 02.12.2025, calling for a reply and personal hearing. The petitioner appeared for the personal hearing but did not file a reply or provide reasons for the delay. The impugned order was then passed. The petitioner sought a direction to re-do the assessment proceedings for the year 2021-22.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit this amount within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice dated 23.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, shall stand vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 10% deposit is made and the petitioner has no other arrears for different tax periods. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the opportunity to file a reply and present documentary evidence, as contemplated under the relevant GST provisions? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication and had made an endorsement to this effect. They sought a fresh adjudication after complying with this condition. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's counsel appeared, and the matter was disposed of with the consent of both parties. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent beyond their appearance and consent to the disposal.