Sri Ganesh Constructions vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Ganesh Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 04.10.2023 for the assessment year 2022-2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (ST), Tuticorin. The petitioner sought to quash the order as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and requested a fresh assessment after proper notice and an opportunity of hearing. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (ST), Tuticorin.

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. Following a previous batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025) which established this principle and applied to the present case, the impugned assessment order dated 04.10.2023 for the assessment year 2022-2023 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Subsequently, the respondent was ordered to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Any bank attachment made in consequence of the impugned order was also directed to be raised. The issue of the specific amount in dispute was not explicitly mentioned as being decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 04.10.2023 for the assessment year 2022-2023 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and lack of jurisdiction, particularly concerning the service of notice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity and proper notice, making it illegal and arbitrary. They relied on the principle that an assessee is entitled to service of notice in modes prescribed under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's decision implies a consideration of the respondent's actions in issuing the assessment order.