M/S. Devamatha Enterprises vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Devamatha Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated January 25, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and a consequential appellate order dated July 10, 2025, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (GST). The petitioner failed to respond to the show-cause notice, leading to an ex parte assessment order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal beyond the condonable limit of 120 days, with an additional delay of two days, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner then approached the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity, notwithstanding their failure to utilize the initial opportunity and the delay in filing the appeal. Citing previous judgments of the High Court, the Court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity, especially when the show-cause notice and assessment order were uploaded on the portal. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. Therefore, the Court ordered the petitioner to deposit the balance 15% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon such deposit, the impugned assessment order and appellate order would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and considering their reply and documents. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing despite failing to respond to the show-cause notice and filing an appeal beyond the condonable period, considering the principles of natural justice and previous High Court judgments? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing and that the impugned orders are cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They sought to quash both orders and direct the second respondent to pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing. Revenue's contention: The Additional Government Pleader argued that the show-cause notice was uploaded on the portal, and it was the petitioner's responsibility to avail the opportunity. They did not advance further arguments on the merits of the case.