Elango vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. M. Elango, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Pudukkottai. The petitioner sought to quash the order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also requested that the respondent be directed to issue a fresh notice and pass a new assessment order after providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The procedural history indicates that the impugned order was passed without proper notice to the petitioner.

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. As the impugned assessment order dated 30.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 was passed without adhering to these provisions, it was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of 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 consequence of the impugned order were also ordered to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders passed without proper service of notice, as prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act, are liable to be quashed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and lack of jurisdiction, specifically concerning the service of notice? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording them a sufficient opportunity of being heard, implying a lack of proper notice. They sought to quash the order and have it re-issued after proper notice and hearing. 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 passing the order without proper notice was flawed.