Tvl. A. Mari Muthu Sri Amman Steels vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.A.Mari Muthu.Sri Amman Steels, represented by its Proprietor, Arumugam Marimuthu, filed a Writ Petition challenging an assessment order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Pudukkottai – II Assessment Circle. The assessment order pertains to the tax period of 2017-2018. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner is challenging the validity of the assessment order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to service of notice in the modes described under clauses a, b, and c of Section 169 of the CGST Act. As the impugned assessment order dated 22.04.2024 for the assessment year 2017-2018 was passed without proper adherence to these procedural requirements, it was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. Subsequently, the respondent is mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged by law and pass fresh orders on merits. The reasoning is based on a prior order passed by the same High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025), which established the petitioner's right to proper service of notice. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without adhering to the prescribed modes of service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act is invalid. The operative direction is to set aside the assessment order, allow the petitioner to file a reply, provide a hearing, and pass a fresh order. Bank attachments, if any, were also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 22.04.2024 for the year 2017-2018 is liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits? The petitioner argued that the assessment order is illegal and should be set aside. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not appear to have made specific arguments recorded in the judgment, but the court's decision implies a challenge to the procedural validity of the assessment. The core of the dispute revolves around the proper service of notice as per Section 169 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that they are entitled to service of notice in the modes described under clauses a, b, and c of Section 169 of the CGST Act, and that the assessment order was passed without proper adherence to these provisions.