M/S. T.N. Textiles vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. T.N. Textiles, represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Mohamed Sharif Abdul Rahman, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer. The impugned order, dated 23.08.2024, pertains to the assessment for the year 2019-2020 and includes a summary order in DRC-07. The petitioner sought to quash this order on grounds of illegality and violation of natural justice, requesting a fresh assessment after a personal hearing. The respondent is the Deputy 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. Citing its own order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025), the Court found that the said order applies to the present case. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 23.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Thereafter, the respondent was mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged by the Act, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any back attachments made were also to stand raised. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness, including proper service of notice and an opportunity for hearing, is a prerequisite for a valid assessment order under the GST regime.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 23.08.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer for the year 2019-2020, is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and sought a direction for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, as per the GST Act, 2017. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but the court's decision implies a consideration of the petitioner's submissions regarding procedural fairness. The court referenced a previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc.) which dealt with the modes of service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act.