Tvl. Jeyarani vs. The State Tax Officer(Investigation)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.JEYARANI, represented by its Proprietor G.Jeyarani, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer (Investigation) for the period 2017-2018. The petitioner also sought a direction to unfreeze its bank account held with Indian Bank. The petitioner had not responded to notices preceding the impugned order. The impugned order was passed by the State Tax Officer (Investigation), Madurai, and the Deputy Commissioner (S.T), Madurai, were the other respondents. The bank account in question was Account No: 813435326.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023. The Court relied on a recent order of the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others, which had quashed notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The reasoning in the Tata Play case, which found the notifications to be vitiated and illegal for curtailing limitations available to authorities and extinguishing vested rights, was adopted. The Court also noted that this Court had followed the Tata Play order in several other cases. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account was directed to be lifted forthwith. The Court also stated that the fresh order to be passed by the respondents would abide by the outcome of the case pending before the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (S.L.P.No.4240 of 2025).

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the respondent, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, thereby warranting quashing? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and jurisdiction). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to defreeze its bank account (Account No: 813435326) with Indian Bank? (Question of law and fact, turning on the validity of the assessment order and subsequent actions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and violated principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the order and defreeze their bank account. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue. However, the context implies the revenue sought to uphold the assessment order and the actions taken.