M/S.Sri Devi Fireworks Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Devi Fireworks Agencies, represented by its Proprietor M. Rajarathinam, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 05.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Aruppukottai Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash the order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They also requested the respondent to issue a fresh notice and pass an assessment order after providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The core of the petitioner's grievance was the alleged lack of proper notice before the assessment order was passed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner 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 05.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 was passed without adhering to the proper procedure for service of notice. Citing a previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025), the Court stated that this order applies to the present case. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter, the respondent is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in relation to this assessment was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 05.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2019-20, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and lack of jurisdiction, specifically concerning the service of notice. This issue turns on the interpretation and application 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 notice, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that an assessee is entitled to adequate opportunity of being heard, which necessitates proper service of notice. 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 was found to be deficient in providing proper notice as per the law.