M/S.Veera Agro Marketing vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Veera Agro Marketing, represented by its Proprietrix, M. Usharani, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.04.2024 issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (South Assessment Circle). The impugned order pertains to the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The case was heard by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 09.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The Court's decision was based on a prior order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025), which established that taxpayers are entitled to service of notice in the modes specified under clauses a, b, and c of Section 169 of the CGST Act. As this precedent applied to the present case, the assessment order was deemed invalid. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. Subsequently, the respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachments made in consequence of the impugned order were also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 09.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction and a clear violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner relied on a previous order passed by the High Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025) which held that a petitioner is entitled to service of notice in the modes described under 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 court's decision implies that the respondent's action was found to be procedurally flawed.