Tvl.Sri Vetri Vinayakar Lorry Transports vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Vetri Vinayakar Lorry Transports, represented by its Proprietor A.Kannan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 23.08.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer II, Sattur I Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash the order on grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of principles of natural justice, and requested a fresh assessment after providing a personal hearing. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer II.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 23.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 is set aside. This decision was based on a previous order of the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025). That order had established that an assessee is entitled to service of notice in the modes described under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that this precedent applied to the present case. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving a copy of this order. Following this, the respondent must provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner, as required, and then pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in relation to this matter shall also stand raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 23.08.2024, passed for the assessment year 2019-20, is liable to be quashed for being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the notice service was not in accordance with the prescribed modes under the GST Act. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but the court's decision implies a consideration of the respondent's actions in issuing the assessment order.