Tvl. Sudharsan Traders vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Sudharsan Traders, represented by its Proprietor Vaikuntadurai Ramesh, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin II Assessment Circle. The assessment order pertains to the tax period of 2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The procedural history involves the issuance of the assessment order, which the petitioner contests.
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 present case was covered by its previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025). Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 09.12.2023 for the year 2018-19 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. The respondent was then directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made was also ordered to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to 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 09.12.2023 for the year 2018-19 is illegal and devoid of merits, specifically concerning the mode of service of notice under the GST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is illegal and should be quashed. While not explicitly detailing arguments on the specific provision, the prayer to redo the assessment implies a procedural defect in the original proceedings. The petitioner relies on the principle that proper notice is essential for a valid assessment. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the procedural defect in notice service. The Court's decision was based on its own prior ruling.
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.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
This writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated 09.12.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. 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 09.12.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 is set aside. The petitioner shall submit his reply to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from today. 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 28.01.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To The State Tax Officer, Tuticorin II Assessment Circle, Tuticorin 628 001. 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.