Tvl.Kuppusamy Subramani vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Kuppusamy Subramani, represented by its Proprietor K.Subramani, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 02.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Dindigul Rural, for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity to submit a reply to the preceding show cause notice. The petitioner offered to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash as a condition for de novo adjudication. The respondent, represented by the Counsel for State of TN, had no objection to remitting the case back for fresh adjudication.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 02.08.2024. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission that the order was passed without a proper reply to the show cause notice. The Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving the order. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice preceding the impugned order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. Upon compliance, the respondent was directed to pass 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 as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 02.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering any reply to the show cause notice, thus violating principles of natural justice. They expressed willingness to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for a fresh adjudication. Respondent's Contention: The Counsel for State of TN for the respondent had no objection to the case being remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order in lieu of the impugned order.