Tvl Jvp Traders vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. JVP Traders, represented by its Proprietor Jegaveera Pandian Lenin, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 29, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin II Circle, for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash the said order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The core of the challenge revolved around the procedural fairness of the assessment, specifically the service of notices.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated December 29, 2023, for the tax period 2017-18. The Court relied on its previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated January 6, 2025), which held that assessees are 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 this precedent applicable to the present case. Consequently, the petitioner was directed 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 and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in connection with the assessment was also to be raised.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated December 29, 2023, for the tax period 2017-18 is liable to be quashed on grounds of procedural illegality, specifically concerning the mode of service of notice under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and devoid of merits, implying a challenge to the procedural correctness of the assessment, likely related to the service of notices. The petitioner sought a direction to redo the assessment proceedings. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent is the authority that passed the impugned assessment order.
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.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.
This writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated 29.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 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 29.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-2018 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 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.
In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To The State Tax Officer, Tuticorin II Circle, Tuticorin. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr Dated: 29.01.2025 _________ 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.