Tvl.Karthikeyan Electricals vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Karthikeyan Electricals, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the State Tax Officer for the periods 2018-2019 and 2020-2021. The impugned orders, dated 03-11-2023 and 07-11-2023 respectively, confirmed demands proposed in preceding notices. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and sought a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner admitted to repeatedly seeking time to provide a proper reply, which led to the passing of the impugned orders in their absence.

Held

The Court held that one more opportunity could be granted to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent, subject to certain conditions. The impugned orders, which were to be quashed, would be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices that preceded them. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was required to submit a consolidated reply, along with supporting evidence, within 30 days. The respondent was then directed to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with the law within two months thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the respondent are liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh assessment after being granted an opportunity for a personal hearing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were illegal and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They sought a fresh assessment by the respondent, emphasizing the need for an opportunity of personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel sought one more opportunity to explain their case before the respondent. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the judgment notes that the petitioner had repeatedly taken time for giving a proper reply, and in the absence of such a reply, the impugned orders were passed.