Tvl Vijaya Company vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Vijaya Company, represented by its Proprietor Seetharaman Ramakrishnan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Theni-I. The assessment order pertains to the tax period of 2021-2022. The petitioner sought to quash the said order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner is seeking relief based on a previous order passed by the same High Court in a batch of writ petitions.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 09.07.2024 for the assessment year 2021-2022. The Court's decision was based on its previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025), which established that an 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 this precedent applied to the present case. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was then directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in relation to the impugned order was also ordered to be raised. The Court expressly left no issues undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 09.07.2024 for the year 2021-2022 is illegal and devoid of merits, necessitating its quashing and a direction for fresh assessment proceedings? The Petitioner argued that the assessment order should be set aside and the proceedings redone. The Petitioner relied on a previous order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025, which held that assessees are entitled to service of notice in modes prescribed under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention, implicitly accepting the applicability of the cited precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 169(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard Mr.Raja Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
This writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated 09.07.2024 for the assessment year 2021-2022. 3. In view of the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025, wherein it has been 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 and since the said order applies to the present case, the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 for the assessment year 2021-2022 is set aside. The petitioner shall submit its reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. In view of this order, the bank attachment, if any, made shall also stand raised. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 31.01.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To The State Tax Officer Theni-I.
3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
mm
2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.