Tvl Thameem Exporters vs. The Commercial Tax Officer/ The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Thameem Exporters, represented by its Proprietor Thameem Ansari Rahim, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated April 17, 2024, passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer, Bodinayakanur Assessment Circle, Theni. This order confirmed a demand for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, issued in response to a show cause notice dated April 17, 2024 (GST DRC 01). The petitioner contended that the impugned order, which confirmed the entire disputed tax, was passed without a detailed order. The respondent's counsel also confirmed the demand had been confirmed.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated April 17, 2024, passed by the respondent was set aside. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order. This decision was based on the observation that the impugned order had not been accompanied by a detailed order, despite confirming a demand. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. This was made subject to the petitioner filing a reply to the show cause notice (GST DRC 01 dated April 17, 2024) along with supporting documents within 30 days. The assessment order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner would be heard before final orders are passed. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could recover the tax as per law. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated April 17, 2024, passed by the respondent is illegal and devoid of merits, warranting its quashing and a direction to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2018-19? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without a detailed order, despite confirming the entire disputed tax. They sought to quash this order and have the assessment proceedings redone. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's counsel, on instructions, confirmed that the disputed tax had been confirmed by the impugned order. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent regarding the merits of the assessment itself, other than confirming the demand.