Tvl. Arunachalam Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Arunachalam Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor Praveen Muthiah, filed a Writ Petition challenging an assessment order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamilsangam Salai Circle, Madurai. The assessment order pertains to the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner received an assessment order without proper service of notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020 was liable to be set aside. The Court relied on its previous order in a batch of Writ Petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025), which established 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 present case was found to be applicable to the principle laid down in the earlier order, the assessment order was quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. Subsequently, the respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachments made were also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 22.08.2024 for the year 2019-2020 is illegal and devoid of merits due to improper service of notice, as per Section 169 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper service of notice, rendering it illegal. 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. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent is the authority that passed the impugned order.