Shree Pandeyan Electricals And Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Pandeyan Electricals and Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palani-1 Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that the assessment order for the year 2018-2019 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also argued that the impugned order was a non-speaking order and therefore legally unsustainable. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. 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 order dated 13.12.2024 was a non-speaking order and therefore could not be legally sustained. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice. 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 was 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 was to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the matter, leaving it open for the respondent to consider the same independently. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for being a non-speaking order and in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as per the provisions of the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, rendering it legally unsustainable. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent is the authority that passed the impugned order.