M/S.Amman Steels vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Amman Steels, represented by its Partner, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mudukulathur Circle. The impugned order, in Form GST DRC-07, Reference No.ZD3308242990942, dated 30.08.2024, pertains to the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing a personal hearing.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2024. The Court relied on its previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025), which held that assessees are 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 was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The respondent was then directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged by the Act and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in relation to the impugned order was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing before the order was finalized. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment after being granted a personal hearing. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim for a personal hearing. However, the court's decision was influenced by a previous batch of writ petitions.