Tvl P.Balasubramanian vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.P.Balasubramanian, represented by its Proprietor P.Balasubramanian, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Kamarajar Salai Assessment Circle, Madurai. The assessment order pertains to the year 2017-2018. The petitioner sought to quash the said order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner received an assessment order without proper notice. The court considered a batch of similar writ petitions decided on January 6, 2025.

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. Since the impugned assessment order dated December 28, 2023, for the year 2017-2018 was passed without adhering to these notice 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. Any bank attachments made in relation to this assessment were also ordered to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to statutory notice provisions is crucial for valid assessment proceedings, and non-compliance vitiates the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated December 28, 2023, for the year 2017-2018 is liable to be quashed due to non-compliance with the notice requirements under the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper service of notice, violating their right to be heard. They relied on the principles of natural justice and the modes of service prescribed under the CGST Act. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action of issuing the assessment order without adhering to the proper notice procedure was found to be deficient.