O. Sankar - Contractor vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, O. Sankar - Contractor, filed a Writ Petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.07.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner (ST), Dindigul Rural Circle. The order was passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without any reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit 100% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for de novo adjudication. The respondent, represented by the Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, had no objection to remitting the case back for a fresh order.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 12.07.2024, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice that preceded the impugned assessment order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If the petitioner complied with these stipulations, the respondent was to proceed with passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months after hearing the petitioner. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with any of the conditions, the respondent was at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if the Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed due to the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without addressing their reply to the show cause notice, rendering it illegal. They offered to deposit the entire disputed tax amount as a condition for a fresh adjudication. The respondent, the State Tax Officer, did not object to a remand for fresh adjudication, indicating a concession on the procedural issue raised by the petitioner.