M/S. Shasthiri Senthamarai Kannan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Shasthiri Senthamarai Kannan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (ST), Karur-I Assessment Circle. The petitioner stated that they had provided manpower supply and had closed their business in 2021, with their GSTIN registration cancelled for non-filing of returns. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice dated 17.02.2023 incorrectly referred to Form GST ASMT-10 dated 01.04.2022, which pertained to a different entity, Tvl.Srinivasan Karthick, indicating a lack of application of mind by the respondent. The impugned assessment order was passed without affording a personal hearing. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, agreed to redo the entire proceedings.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that the show cause notice was also flawed, referencing an incorrect document. Given the respondent's submission that they would redo the entire proceedings, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The respondent was granted liberty to redo the assessment in accordance with the law, which would include issuing a fresh notice and affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a hearing, are unsustainable. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and permit the respondent to redo the assessment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 25.05.2023, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017, as no personal hearing was granted. They further argued that the show cause notice was flawed, referencing an incorrect document (Form GST ASMT-10 dated 01.04.2022) that belonged to a different entity, indicating a lack of application of mind by the respondent. The respondent did not present any counter-arguments on the merits of the petitioner's claims but agreed to redo the entire proceedings.