Tvl. Uthra Construction Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Uthra Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated February 21, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kamarajar Salai Assessment Circle, Madurai, for the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice, although some discussion on the merits of the case appeared to have occurred. Instead of filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated February 21, 2024, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the receipt of the order. The Court reasoned that in similar circumstances, it had granted liberty to individuals like the petitioner to file a detailed reply, treating the assessment order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The Court found no reason to deviate from this precedent. Following the deposit, the respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. If the petitioner complies, the impugned order will be deemed quashed. Failure to comply will result in the writ petition being dismissed, allowing the respondent to proceed with recovery. The issue of the merits of the assessment itself was not decided, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration upon compliance with the conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 21.02.2024, passed by the respondent for the tax period 2021-22, is to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, and whether the respondent should be directed to redo the assessment proceedings. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and have the proceedings redone. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond seeking this relief. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's prayer in the provided text. The judgment implies the respondent's role was to defend the assessment order.