Tvl. Sabari Constructions vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sabari Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner, B. Rajaprabhu, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer II, Palani-2 Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner sought to quash the order on grounds of illegality and violation of principles of natural justice, requesting a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer II, Palani-2 Assessment Circle.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 25.04.2024, passed for the assessment year 2018-2019, was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the precedent set by this Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025), which established that assessees are entitled to service of notice in the modes prescribed under clauses a, b, and c of Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court found that the present case was covered by this earlier order. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, after which the respondent was to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order on merits. Any bank attachments made were also to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 25.04.2024, passed for the assessment year 2018-2019, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles, specifically by not providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner relied on a previous order of this Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025) which held that petitioners are entitled to service of notice in 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.