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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Juhi Scoring Works, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated July 18, 2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Sivakasi-2 Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that for the same assessment year and the same defect, another order was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer–2 (ST) on August 24, 2024, which was impugned in a separate writ petition (W.P.(MD) No.9847 of 2025). The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh assessment with a personal hearing.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned assessment order dated July 18, 2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2019-2020, was liable to be set aside. The primary reasoning was the observation that for the same assessment year and concerning the same defect, another order had been passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer–2 (ST) on August 24, 2024, which was impugned in a separate writ petition. This duplication or procedural anomaly, coupled with the petitioner's assertion of a violation of natural justice, led the Court to set aside the order. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed in violation of natural justice, especially when compounded by procedural irregularities like parallel proceedings for the same issue, warrants being set aside and remanded for a fair adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated July 18, 2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2019-2020 is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording them a sufficient opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. They also pointed out that a similar order for the same assessment year and based on the same defect was challenged in a connected writ petition, suggesting a procedural irregularity or duplication. They relied on the general principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GST Act requiring fair hearing. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records that both sides were heard. No specific arguments were detailed for the respondent, other than their presence and participation in the hearing.