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, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Nagercoil, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner sought to quash the order as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules, 2017. They also prayed for a fresh assessment order after proper notice and an opportunity of hearing, following CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Nagercoil.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 21.10.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020 was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on a prior order of the same Court in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025). The principle established in that batch of cases was that an 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. Since the present case was found to be covered by that precedent, the assessment order was quashed. The Court directed the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks of receiving the order. Subsequently, the respondent was directed 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 the impugned order was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 21.10.2023, passed for the assessment year 2019-2020, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction in violation of Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules, 2017 and CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, violating Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules, 2017, and that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing as per CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST. They sought to quash the order and obtain a fresh assessment after proper notice. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action was found to be procedurally flawed.