M/S.Vimal Enterprises vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

M/s. Vimal Enterprises, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07, dated December 30, 2023, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chokkikulam Circle, the respondent. The impugned order pertains to the tax period April 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner sought to quash the order for being illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and requested a fresh assessment after providing a personal hearing. The respondent is the tax authority who passed the order under challenge.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 for the tax period April 2017 to March 2018 is set aside. This decision was based on a prior ruling by the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc.) dated 06.01.2025. That ruling 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. Since the principle from that earlier judgment applies to the present case, the impugned order is deemed to have been passed in violation of procedural requirements. The Court directed the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving a copy of this order. Subsequently, the respondent is mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged by the Act and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in consequence of the impugned order is also to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the respondent for the tax period April 2017 to March 2018, is illegal and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that they were not provided with adequate opportunity of personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but implicitly defended the order by appearing before the court. The court's decision was influenced by a previous batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc.) decided on 06.01.2025, which dealt with the proper service of notices under the GST Act.