Tvl.B.Raj Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.B.Raj Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order of assessment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Theni-I Assessment Circle. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that although they submitted a reply, the assessment order was passed solely on the ground that supporting documents were not uploaded. The petitioner highlighted circumstances that prevented them from availing the opportunity to upload these documents. The respondent argued that it is the assessee's responsibility to produce supporting documents, and therefore, the assessment order was rightly passed.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of assessment dated 20.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was liable to be set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the order was passed solely on the failure to submit supporting documents and acknowledged the circumstances presented by the petitioner for not availing the opportunity. Considering these factors, the Court decided to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to present their case. The Court reasoned that since the impugned order was based on a procedural lapse regarding document submission, and given the petitioner was dealing with exempt goods, a fresh opportunity was warranted. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses in document submission, when explained with valid reasons, should not lead to a final assessment without affording a proper hearing, especially when the assessee is dealing with exempt goods. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent and submit their reply and supporting documents. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violating principles of natural justice and being arbitrary, perverse, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, particularly when the petitioner claims to have submitted a reply but failed to upload supporting documents due to specific circumstances? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and was arbitrary and perverse. They contended that despite submitting a reply, the order was based solely on the non-uploading of supporting documents, and they had valid reasons for this failure. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that it is the responsibility of the assessee to produce supporting documents to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the assessment order was correctly passed as the petitioner failed to fulfill this obligation.