S Sesappan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, S. Sesappan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 05.11.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer II, Sattur, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically due to a lack of a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing as per the GST Act provisions. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer II.

Held

The Court held that the 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 present case was covered by a previous batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025) which established this principle. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Thereafter, the respondent is mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in relation to this matter was also ordered to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that a proper opportunity of hearing, as prescribed by Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, must be afforded to the assessee before passing an assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 05.11.2024, passed for the assessment year 2018-19, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner specifically sought a personal hearing before the respondent passed the order. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GST Act concerning opportunities for hearing. Respondent's contentions: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action of passing an order without a proper hearing was found to be deficient.