Tvl.Sp Agency vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. SP Agency, represented by its Proprietor A. Soundarapandian, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner received an assessment order without proper service of notice, which is the basis of the challenge.

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 found that the impugned assessment order dated 04.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 was passed without adhering to the proper procedure for service of notice. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order. The reasoning was based on a previous batch of writ petitions decided by the same Court (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025), which established the requirement for proper service of notice. The ratio decidendi is that failure to serve notice in accordance with Section 169(1) of the CGST Act vitiates the subsequent assessment order. The Court directed the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order, and thereafter, the respondent must provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 04.04.2024 for the year 2018-19 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of notice, in light 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, violating their right to natural justice. They relied on the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribes specific modes for service of notice. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to adhere to these prescribed modes. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the service of notice, but implicitly defended the order passed.