M/S.S.R.Constructions vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.S.R.Constructions, challenged an assessment order dated 21.10.2023 for the tax period 2020-2021, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Nagercoil. The petitioner sought to quash the order as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly in violation of Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017. They also prayed for the respondent to issue a fresh notice and pass an assessment order after affording an opportunity of hearing, following CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner received the impugned order without proper notice. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

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. Citing its own previous order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No. 26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025), the Court found that the said order applied to the present case. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 21.10.2023 for the tax period 2020-2021 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Thereafter, the respondent is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in relation to this matter was also ordered to be raised. The issue concerning Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017 was implicitly addressed by setting aside the order due to lack of proper notice and opportunity, which would encompass adherence to such rules during a fresh assessment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 21.10.2023 for the tax period 2020-2021 is liable to be quashed for being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, specifically concerning the mode of service of notice under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. They contended that the respondent failed to provide proper notice and an opportunity of hearing, violating Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017 and the principles of natural justice. They relied on CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023 and a previous order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claims in the judgment.