M/S.R.Soundararajan And Co. vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the respondent had sent the notice to an incorrect email ID, which was not the petitioner's email ID. This failure to properly notify the petitioner and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing rendered the order unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to submit their objections within three weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was then directed to consider these objections, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass a speaking order within eight weeks. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed without affording a proper opportunity of being heard and without proper notice violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.R.Soundararajan & Co., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Tax Officer-1, Thanjavur I Circle. The petitioner contended that the impugned order, which determined a total turnover of Rs.1,67,60,124.15 with SGST and CGST of Rs.14,08,714.97 each, was passed without affording them a personal hearing. The petitioner also claimed to have paid an excess amount of tax. The respondent contended that the petitioner did not respond to a notice. However, it was found that the notice was sent to an incorrect email ID, not belonging to the petitioner, leading to a violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.04.2022, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed, and the notice was sent to an incorrect email ID, thus violating principles of natural justice. The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the notice. However, the respondent admitted that the notice was sent to an incorrect email ID, which was not the petitioner's registered email address.