M/S. J.K. Engineering And Electro Platers vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) - Ii

Facts

The petitioner, M/S.J.K.Engineering and Electroo Platers, represented by its Proprietrix Natarajan Bharathi, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II, Virudhunagar. The order in question was dated 04.07.2022, with a Case ID of GSTIN 33ALDPB3684K1Z6/2017-18 and dated 30.06.2022. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and a clear violation of Section 140(1) of the Tamilnadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II, Virudhunagar.

Held

The Court, by referring to an identical case in W.P.(MD).No.15924 of 2021, disposed of the present writ petition with similar directions. In the cited case, the High Court had quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent/Assessment Officer for reconsideration. During reconsideration, the respondent was directed to take into account the reply submitted by the petitioner along with documents dated 08.10.2020 and 14.10.2020. If a personal hearing was deemed necessary, it was to be provided to the petitioner. After affording these opportunities, the respondent was to proceed further and pass final assessment orders as early as possible. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and proper consideration of petitioner's submissions are paramount before passing final orders, especially when statutory provisions are invoked.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? This issue turns on the procedural fairness and the substantive legality of the order. The petitioner argues that the order is in clear violation of Section 140(1) of the Tamilnadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and lacks jurisdiction. The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their role as the issuing authority implies a defense of the order's validity. The court is called upon to decide if the petitioner's claims regarding illegality, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and contravention of Section 140(1) are substantiated.