Tvl.Rabi Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rabi Agency, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated November 20, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle. The petitioner stated that due to a lack of GST knowledge and portal access, they relied on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing, leading to the impugned order being passed without their participation. The petitioner's primary grievance was the violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of an opportunity of hearing.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 20, 2023, passed by the respondent, was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's case on its own merits, conduct a fresh assessment, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Crucially, the respondent was mandated to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any fresh orders. This direction was to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court found no reason for costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.11.2023, passed by the respondent, is illegal and without jurisdiction for violating the principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without providing a personal hearing, which is a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GST Act. They contended that this procedural lapse renders the order invalid and sought its quashing. The petitioner also sought a direction for a fresh assessment after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice in the provided judgment text. The judgment indicates that the respondent's order was being challenged, and the court's decision was based on the materials presented.