Tvl. Mullai Traders vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Mullai Traders, represented by its Proprietor, Ali Fathima, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Uthamapalayam Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2022-2023. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The core of the dispute revolves around the procedural validity of the assessment order, specifically concerning the service of notice.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated 28.06.2024 for the assessment year 2022-2023 was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on a previous order of the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025). In that batch, it was held 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. Since the present case was found to be covered by the principle laid down in the earlier judgment, the impugned assessment order was quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. Subsequently, the respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The Court also ordered that any bank attachment made in consequence of the impugned order shall stand raised. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to the statutory modes of service of notice under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act is mandatory for the validity of assessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.06.2024 for the assessment year 2022-2023 is illegal and devoid of merits due to improper service of notice, thereby violating the provisions of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper service of notice as contemplated under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to adhere to the prescribed modes of service, rendering the assessment order invalid. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the service of notice, but the Court's decision implies a concession or acceptance of the petitioner's procedural challenge.