Tvl B K Steel And Alloys vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.B.K.Steel and Alloys, represented by its Proprietor Bhagwan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai. The assessment order pertained to the tax period of 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned proceedings and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment order and sought relief from the High Court.
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. Citing a previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025), the Court found that the said order was applicable to the present case. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 23.12.2023 for the year 2017-18 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. Thereafter, the respondent was ordered 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 assessment was also ordered to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with the prescribed modes of service of notice under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act is mandatory for valid assessment proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 23.12.2023 for the year 2017-18 is 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? The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without proper service of notice as mandated by law. The respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the service of notice, as the judgment refers to a prior order in a batch of writ petitions that applied to the present case.
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.J.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
This writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated 23.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 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 23.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 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 Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 30.01.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kamarajar Salai, Madurai.
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.