M/S.Balagan Beedi Company Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer 1 (Roving Squad)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.BALAGAN BEEDI COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, filed three writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 29.09.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer 1 (Roving Squad) for the assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the orders were cryptic, lacked application of mind, and were passed without jurisdiction, contrary to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent contended that show cause notices were issued on 03.05.2024, replies were filed, but the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings despite multiple notices. The respondent asserted that the replies were insufficient, leading to the rejection and passing of the assessment orders, and suggested the petitioner file an appeal.

Held

The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the respondent had issued show cause notices and provided opportunities for personal hearing, which the petitioner failed to avail. The Court found that the petitioner's replies were neither proper nor effective, leading to their rejection. Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned assessment orders, passed due to the petitioner's inaction and failure to present their case effectively, did not warrant interference. The Court noted that an assessee has two opportunities to present their case, one before the Assessing Officer and another before the Appellate Authority. Given the petitioner's willingness to file an appeal, the Court dismissed the writ petitions while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of receiving the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits, providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the respondent are liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-application of mind, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, contrary to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned assessment orders were passed without proper application of mind and were illegal and without jurisdiction, violating Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. They sought to quash these orders. Revenue's Argument: The respondent argued that sufficient opportunities for personal hearing were provided, but the petitioner failed to appear. The replies filed by the petitioner were deemed insufficient and were rejected. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly passed and no interference was warranted. The respondent suggested filing an appeal.