Tvl. Maris Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner(State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Maris Agency, represented by its Proprietor P. Venkateshbabu, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 20, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Madurai. The order pertains to the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for a hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the impugned order was a non-speaking order and that the respondent failed to provide any findings under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, rendering the order liable to be set aside. The matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated August 20, 2024, is a non-speaking order and therefore cannot be legally sustained. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for a hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court also noted the absence of specific findings under Section 73(1) of the GST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, provide an opportunity to be heard, and then pass a speaking order. This exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the matter, leaving it open for the respondent to consider on its own merits. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated August 20, 2024, passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 is liable to be quashed for being a non-speaking order and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner under Section 73(1) of the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for a hearing, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. They also contended that the order was a non-speaking order and that the respondent failed to provide any findings under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, making it legally unsustainable. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's order was found to be legally deficient.