Tvl. Ameen Lineman vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Rabi Agency (later corrected to Tvl. Ameen Lineman), represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated November 18, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner attributed their inability to attend the hearing to a lack of GST knowledge and portal access, and reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them of the proceedings. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2019-2020.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated November 18, 2023, passed by the respondent was in violation of the principles of natural justice because it was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court reasoned that a fair hearing is a fundamental right, and its denial renders any subsequent order unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to re-do the assessment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order dated November 18, 2023, passed by the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction due to the violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of an opportunity for a personal hearing, as mandated by the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing a fair opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. They stated that due to their limited knowledge of GST and portal access, and the failure of their part-time accountant to inform them about the assessment proceedings, they were unable to attend the personal hearing. Therefore, the assessment order being ex-parte, should be quashed. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action of passing an ex-parte order without affording a hearing was found to be contrary to law.
Sections Cited
GST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent vide his order in GSTIN. 33BCGPN5593L1Z3/2019-2020 and also to direct the respondent to re- do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.
The petitioner is a registered tax payer and due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on a part- time accountant, who also failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing, leading to the issuance of an ex-parte assessment order dated 18.11.2023. 3. The petitioner's main grievance is that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits, re-do the assessment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.04.2025 Index : Yes / No (3/3) NCC : Yes / No sm 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
sm To The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle, Tenkasi District.
(3/3) 23.04.2025 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
This Writ Petition is listed today under the caption ''for being mentioned'' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 23.04.2025, passed in W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025, the petitioner's name has been inadvertently mentioned as "Tvl.Rabi Agency, Rep. By its Proprietor M.Mydeen, No.167/N7, Soma Puram Mettu Street, Tenkasi – 627811." instead of "Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Rep. by its Proprietor M.Noril Ameen, No.41,137, Puthumanai 2nd Street, Tenkasi - 627811". Therefore, the learned counsel prays for necessary correction in the said order.
In view of the above, the Registry is directed to carry out the correction by substituting the name "Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Rep. by its Proprietor M.Noril Ameen, No.41,137, Puthumanai 2nd Street, Tenkasi - 627811" in place of "Tvl. Rabi Agency, Rep. By its Proprietor 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis M.Mydeen, No.167/N7, Soma Puram Mettu Street, Tenkasi – 627811" in the order dated 23.04.2025 and issue a fresh copy of the corrected order forthwith.
2025 smn2
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025 &
2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.