Rock Fort Wires vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rock Fort Wires, represented by its Partner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). This order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, citing discrepancies such as excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC), claim of ineligible ITC, and late fee. The petitioner asserted that they had filed a reply on 06.12.2025, which was available on the portal, but this reply was not considered in the impugned order, as indicated by the order's preamble stating the taxpayer's reply as 'nil' and the body of the order not reflecting any consideration of the reply. The petitioner contended that this failure to consider their reply violated the principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the Assessing Authority had failed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 06.12.2025. The Court found that the order's preamble indicated the taxpayer's reply as 'nil', and the body of the order did not reflect any consideration of the petitioner's submissions. This failure to consider a filed reply was deemed a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file any additional reply and supporting documents within one week of receiving the order, which were also to be considered. An opportunity of hearing was to be afforded to the petitioner before a fresh order was passed. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for failing to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 06.12.2025, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Authority failed to consider their reply dated 06.12.2025, which was duly filed and available on the portal. This omission, they contended, rendered the impugned order illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that the order itself noted their reply as 'nil' and did not discuss any of their submissions. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (The Assistant Commissioner (ST)).