M/S. Je Shipping And Logistics Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner St Tuticorin Iii Assessment Circle

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. JE Shipping & Logistics Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 30, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner ST, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The petition also sought to raise any bank attachment made. The second respondent, HDFC Bank, was also impleaded.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It 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. Since the Court found that the said principle applies to the present case, the impugned assessment order dated August 30, 2024, for the assessment year 2019-2020, was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Subsequently, the first respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 30.08.2024, passed for the assessment year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of notice, considering the provisions of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper service of notice, which is a mandatory requirement under the law. They relied on the principle that assessees are entitled to service of notice in modes prescribed under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the first respondent regarding the service of notice or the validity of the assessment order.