Tvl. Avl Engineering vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (St)Ii

Held

The Court held that it is well-settled that only one assessment order can be passed in respect of a defect occurring in a particular assessment year. The impugned order was found to suffer from the vice of duplication, as the petitioner had already been issued another assessment order for the same tax period and defect. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The reasoning is that issuing multiple orders for the same issue is legally impermissible and amounts to an illegality. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer cannot be subjected to multiple assessments for the same tax period and the same set of issues. The Court allowed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. No costs were awarded. The issue of providing a personal hearing was implicitly addressed by quashing the order and allowing for a fresh assessment, though the specific direction for a fresh assessment was not explicitly stated in the operative part, only that the impugned order is quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.A.V.L.Engineering, represented by its Proprietor, Vincent Lino, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer(ST)-II, Tuticorin. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2021-22 and was dated 02.01.2024, though digitally signed and dated 02.01.2025. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice. They also requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The judgment notes that the petitioner was subjected to two assessment orders for the same defect in the assessment year 2021-2022, one dated 02.01.2024 and another dated 20.02.2024. The petitioner intended to appeal the order dated 20.02.2024, for which liberty had been granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of two assessment orders for the same tax period and defect violates established legal principles, rendering the subsequent order liable for quashing? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the issuance of multiple assessment orders for the same tax period and the same defect is illegal and unsustainable. They contended that the impugned order suffers from duplication and should be quashed. The petitioner also sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing, emphasizing a violation of natural justice principles. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim of duplication or violation of natural justice in the provided text. The court's decision appears to be based on the admitted fact of the issuance of two orders.