M/S Hari Traders vs. The Commercial Tax Officer /The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hari Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and a demand order, both dated 05.02.2025, passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer, Kodaikanal Circle. These orders were issued for the tax period 2020-21 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The impugned orders were preceded by a notice in DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024 and three reminders. The respondent contended that the notice was served through the common portal as per Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST and TNGST Acts, 2017, with information communicated via SMS and registered email. However, the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the notice, leading to the order being passed without their participation. The Court noted that it could not definitively determine whether the petitioner received or deleted the email.

Held

The Court held that while it could not definitively determine in the writ petition whether the petitioner had actually received or deleted the email communication, the fact remained that the impugned order was passed without the petitioner participating in the proceedings. Citing previous judgments where similar circumstances led the Court to quash orders on the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found no reason to deviate from this practice. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed and the case was remitted back to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days. Upon compliance, the respondent was to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner within three months. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. The issue of whether the petitioner deleted or received the email was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order and demand order dated 05.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed due to alleged non-service of notice on the petitioner? The petitioner argued that despite the respondent's claim of service of notice in DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024 through the common portal, SMS, and email, the notice was not actually served on them. This lack of proper service, they contended, resulted in the assessment order being passed without affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the notice was served in accordance with the provisions of Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST and TNGST Acts, 2017, and that information regarding the notice and order was communicated to the petitioner's registered mobile number and email ID. They maintained that the statutory requirements for service were met.