Venkatachalam vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Venkatachalam, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in FORM GST DRC 07 dated 14.03.2024, both pertaining to the assessment year 2019-2020. The respondent is the State Tax Officer. The petitioner sought to quash these orders. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned orders by the respondent authority.

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. As this principle, established in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025, applies to the present case, the impugned assessment order dated 12.03.2024 and the consequential proceedings dated 14.03.2024 were set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Subsequently, 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 consequence of the impugned orders is also to be raised. The issue of the amount in dispute was not expressly decided as the matter was remanded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of notice, considering the provisions of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were entitled to service of notice in the modes described under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, implying that the service effected was not in accordance with the law. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent regarding the service of notice or the validity of the impugned orders.