Tvl.Uthirapathi Contractor vs. The State Tax Officer (Inspection I)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Uthirapathi Contractor, represented by its Proprietor P. Uthirapathi, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Respondent, The State Tax Officer (Inspection-I), for the tax period 2018-19, dated 05.09.2024. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also requested a direction for the Respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. The Respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner had paid the tax amount pursuant to a DRC-01 notice, and the current show cause notice was only for the collection of interest and penalty.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order is set aside. The reasoning provided is that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by a previous order of the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025). Although the Respondent's counsel indicated that the petitioner had paid the tax and the notice was only for interest and penalty, the Court found that this information was only made available on the portal. The Court's decision to set aside the order and direct a fresh assessment is based on the principle of providing an opportunity of hearing, aligning with the previous batch order. The operative direction is that the petitioner must submit a reply within two weeks of receiving the order, after which the Respondent shall pass orders on merits after providing a hearing. Any bank attachment made is also to be raised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the Respondent, is illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing. This issue turns on the procedural fairness of the assessment process under the GST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by not providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing. They sought a fresh assessment with such an opportunity. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner had already paid the tax amount following a DRC-01 notice, and the subsequent show cause notice was solely for interest and penalty. The judgment does not record any further specific arguments from the Respondent regarding the procedural fairness or legality of the impugned order itself.