Tvl. Sri Shanthi Traders vs. The Deputy State Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Santhi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer 2, Virudhunagar II Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that although notices were uploaded on the portal and they were informed of a personal hearing date of 14.03.2024, they appeared on that date and requested time to submit documents, stating they had not received the show cause notice. The respondent proceeded to pass the order without granting time, citing the petitioner's failure to file documents. The petitioner claimed they would provide explanations and documents if given a further opportunity.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The Court relied on its previous order in W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025, which established that petitioners are entitled to service of notice in the modes prescribed under clauses a, b, and c of Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court found that this principle applied to the present case. The petitioner was directed to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was then directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachments made were also ordered to be raised. The issue of whether the specific notice served met the requirements of Section 169 was implicitly decided in favor of the petitioner based on the cited precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2024, passed for the assessment year 2018-2019, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction, specifically concerning the proper service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were not provided with the show cause notice and that the assessment order was passed without granting them a reasonable opportunity to present their case, thereby violating principles of natural justice. They relied on a previous order of this Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025) which held that service of notice must be in accordance with clauses a, b, and c of Section 169 of the CGST Act. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.