M/S.Renishaa Agency vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Renishaa Agency, represented by its Proprietrix R. Sudha Devi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.05.2024, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Sivagangai. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2017-2018. The petitioner sought to quash the order on grounds of being without jurisdiction and a clear violation of statutory provisions. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 for the tax period 2017-2018. 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). That order had held 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 principle of that order applied to the present case, the impugned order was deemed invalid. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Subsequently, the respondent is to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass orders on merits. Any bank attachment made in relation to the impugned order is also to be raised. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the prescribed modes of service of notice under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act renders subsequent orders invalid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, issued by the Respondent for the tax period 2017-2018, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? The Petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions. The Respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision was based on a previous order concerning the modes of service of notice under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 169(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 10.05.2024 for the tax period 2017-2018. 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 10.05.2024 for the tax period 2017-2018 is set aside. The petitioner shall submit its 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 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.
In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2025 Note: Issue order copy by 08.01.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To The Deputy State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Building, Sivagangai. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr Dated: 06.01.2025 _________ 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.