Tvl Sabari Constructions vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order, which was wrongly dated, was liable to be quashed. The Court noted that in the digitalized era, incorrect dating of official orders can lead to confusion. Citing a previous order of the same Court in W.P(MD)No.14282 of 2024, where a similar issue of a wrongly dated order was addressed, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention. The reasoning was that such a dating error violates the principles of natural justice by creating ambiguity and potentially prejudicing the assessee's ability to respond effectively. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order with a significant dating discrepancy, which causes confusion, is procedurally flawed and warrants being set aside. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent for a fresh assessment, ensuring the petitioner is provided an opportunity for a personal hearing as per the GST Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sabari Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner B.Rajaprabhu, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer – II, Palani. The impugned order, bearing GSTIN NO.33ADHFS1184M1ZS/2018-2019, was dated 03.07.2024 but signed on 03.07.2025. The petitioner contended that this incorrect dating rendered the order illegal and a violation of natural justice. They sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order with a demonstrably incorrect date, leading to potential confusion, is illegal and violates the principles of natural justice, as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the discrepancy in the date of the impugned order (dated 03.07.2024 but signed on 03.07.2025) renders the order illegal and a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They relied on a previous order of the same High Court in W.P(MD)No.14282 of 2024 (Tvl.Annai Traders Vs The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Inspection Cell – III, Madurai) which quashed a similar order due to a dating error. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the dating error. The judgment does not record any argument from the respondent on this point.