M Vimalraj vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M.Vimalraj, challenged two orders: an assessment order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the 5th respondent (State Tax Officer) and a subsequent order dated 04.11.2023 by the 6th respondent (Commercial Tax Officer). These orders pertained to the petitioner's company, M/s. Evergreen Renewables Private Limited, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested the waiver of interest and tax penalties, citing Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST dated 15.10.2024. The impugned orders were passed by the State Tax Officer (Adjudication) and the Commercial Tax Officer.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned assessment order dated 03.11.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on a previous order passed by the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025). In that prior judgment, it was held that assessees are entitled to service of notice in the modes described under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Applying this precedent to the present case, the Court found that the service of notice was not in compliance with the law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was then mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order on merits. Any bank attachment made was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 03.11.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of notice, in light of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and sought its quashing, along with a waiver of interest and penalties, by relying on Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST dated 15.10.2024. The petitioner also contended that the service of notice was not in accordance with the prescribed modes under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments on the specific points of law or fact raised by the petitioner regarding the service of notice or the applicability of Section 128A and the circular. However, they were present and heard.