Tvl. Ayyappa Store vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ayyappa Store, represented by its Proprietor R. Kannan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated August 17, 2024, passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, Nilakottai Circle, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner sought to quash this order. The respondents were the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the State Tax Officer.

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 17.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020 was passed without proper service of notice, it was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. Subsequently, the respondent was mandated 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 in consequence of the impugned order were also ordered to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to the prescribed modes of service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act is mandatory for the validity of assessment orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 17.08.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of notice, considering the provisions of Section 169 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was invalid due to improper service of notice. The petitioner relied on a previous order passed by the same court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025). Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' actions regarding notice service were found to be deficient.