Tvl B K Steel And Alloys vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.B.K.Steel and Alloys, represented by its Proprietor Bhagwan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Madurai, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner received an assessment order without proper service of notice as per statutory requirements.

Held

The Court 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. The Court relied 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 this principle. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 02.07.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 was set aside as illegal. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. Thereafter, the respondent is mandated 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 shall stand raised. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to statutory notice procedures is a prerequisite for valid assessment proceedings under the GST regime.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 02.07.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 is illegal and liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of notice, contrary to 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, violating the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates service of notice through specific modes (a), (b), and (c). Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action of issuing the assessment order without adhering to the prescribed notice procedures was found to be deficient.