Sri Balaji Timber Mart vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Balaji Timber Mart, represented by its proprietor S. Murugan, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 03.10.2023. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and were issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Sengottai Circle. The petitioner sought to quash these orders as illegal and unconstitutional. The core of the challenge appears to stem from the manner of service of notice, although the specific amount in dispute is not recorded in the judgment.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that the impugned assessment orders dated 03.10.2023 for the assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were to be set aside. This decision was based on a prior order of the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025). That order had established that a petitioner is 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 this precedent applicable to the present case. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. Following this, the respondent was mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any attachments made to recover dues were also 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 impugned assessment orders dated 03.10.2023 for the periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 are illegal and unconstitutional due to improper service of notice, as contemplated under Section 169 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were illegal and unconstitutional. They relied on a previous order passed by this 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. The petitioner contended that this precedent applies to their case. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent Revenue.