M/S.Juhi Scoring Works vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Juhi Scoring Works, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2 (ST), Sivakasi. The assessment pertains to the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with sufficient opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that a previous order for the same assessment year and based on a similar defect, passed by the State Tax Office (ST), Sivakasi 2 Assessment Circle on 18.07.2024, was already set aside by this Court on 08.04.2025. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, is liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the fact that a similar order for the same assessment year and with the same defect, passed by the State Tax Officer (ST), Sivakasi 2 Assessment Circle on 18.07.2024, had been set aside by this Court on 08.04.2025. The Court found that the current order suffered from the same defect of not providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that if a previous order for the same period and based on similar procedural defects has been set aside by the High Court, subsequent orders with the same flaws should also be quashed. The Court directed the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing, passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also pointed out that a similar order for the same assessment year and with the same defect, passed on 18.07.2024, had already been set aside by this Court on 08.04.2025. Therefore, based on this precedent and the violation of natural justice, the current order should also be quashed. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent side regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice or the precedent set by the earlier order.