S.Sesappan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, S. Sesappan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated November 7, 2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer II, Sattur. The order pertains to the assessment year 2024-25. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer II. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned order by the respondent.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated November 7, 2024, for the assessment year 2024-25, was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on a previous order passed by the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated January 6, 2025). In that prior judgment, it was 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 the principle laid down in the earlier batch of writ petitions was applicable to the present case. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. Following this, the respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged by the GST Act, and then 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 assessment order dated November 7, 2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2024-25 is illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by not providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner relied on the provisions of the GST Act concerning service of notices and the right to be heard. Respondent's Contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in defense of the order's validity in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies a concession or acceptance of the petitioner's procedural grievance.