M/S. Arni Engineering Tech Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection)

Facts

The petitioner, Arni Engineering Tech Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the first respondent. This order was for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that a prior order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the second respondent under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was issued without any notice. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the subsequent order dated 16.01.2025 was passed by the first respondent without issuing notice and without following the procedure under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, conceded that the matter could be remanded for reconsideration.

Held

The Court held that the matter should be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the earlier assessment order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. The Court directed the first respondent to review the petitioner's case, taking into account the grievance that the subsequent order dated 16.01.2025 was passed without notice or in compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The first respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed in violation of natural justice, particularly without notice or proper procedural adherence, are liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for being passed without issuing notice to the petitioner? 2. Whether the first respondent erred in passing the order dated 16.01.2025 without invoking the procedure contemplated under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for rectification of errors? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that both the initial order dated 05.09.2024 and the subsequent order dated 16.01.2025 were passed without issuing any notice to them. They specifically argued that the latter order was passed without adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Respondents' arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that the matter could be remanded back to the first respondent for reconsideration and passing a fresh order within a specified time frame.