Tvl Vetri Motors Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer 3 (Intelligence)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Vetri Motors Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer 3 (Intelligence). The petitioner is administratively assigned to the Central Authority for tax levy and collection. The impugned order confirmed a demand proposed in a preceding notice. However, the Central Authority, specifically the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai, had already passed an Order in Original No.MDU-GST—JC-03-2024 dated 28.03.2024 concerning the same dispute, wherein a part of the demand was dropped. The petitioner argued that the impugned order from the State Authority was unsustainable in light of the earlier order from the Central Authority.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the respondent (State Tax Officer 3 (Intelligence)) is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The reasoning is that the jurisdictional Central Authority, the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai, had already passed an Order in Original No.MDU-GST—JC-03-2024 dated 28.03.2024 concerning the very same dispute, wherein a part of the demand was dropped. The Court found that the existence of this prior order from the Central Authority rendered the subsequent order from the State Authority untenable. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed by one tax authority on a matter already decided by a higher or co-equal jurisdictional authority on the same facts and dispute is invalid. The Court granted liberty to the respondent to liaise with their counterparts in the Central Tax Authority to bring the content of the Order in Original dated 28.03.2024 to their knowledge. If any deficiency is noticed, the Central Authority is to take suitable action based on its own order dated 28.03.2024. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2018-19 in light of the Central Authority's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the respondent (State Tax Officer 3 (Intelligence)) is liable to be quashed in light of the Order in Original No.MDU-GST—JC-03-2024 dated 28.03.2024 passed by the jurisdictional Central Authority (Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai) concerning the same dispute. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order passed by the State Tax Officer is unsustainable and liable to be quashed because the Central Authority, which has jurisdiction over the petitioner for tax levy and collection, had already passed an order on the same subject matter, dropping a part of the demand. The petitioner relied on the principle that conflicting orders from different authorities on the same issue should not be sustained. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the prior order of the Central Authority. The judgment notes that the matter was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned Additional Government Pleader.