Tvl. Umakanth Contractor vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Umakanth Contractor, represented by its Proprietor K. Umakanth, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 25.08.2023, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli District. The assessment order pertains to the assessment year 2022-2023. The petitioner sought to quash the order, alleging it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondent to re-do the assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.

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 25.08.2023 for the assessment year 2022-2023 was passed without adhering to these service requirements, it was set aside. The Court reasoned that this aligns with a previous batch of writ petitions decided by the same bench on 06.01.2025. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders passed without proper service of notice, as mandated by Section 169 of the CGST Act, violate principles of natural justice and are therefore liable to be quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, after which the respondent must provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order on merits. Bank attachments, if any, were also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 25.08.2023, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2022-2023, is liable to be quashed for being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice? This issue turns on the proper service of notice under the CGST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and that proper notice was not served. They relied on the principles of natural justice and sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claims in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's previous action of issuing the assessment order without proper notice was flawed.