Tvl.C Selvam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.C Selvam Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Srirangam Assessment Circle, under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The challenge was based on allegations that the order was cryptic, showed non-application of mind, and was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contended that the order was passed because they could not effectively utilize the opportunity to appear before the respondent and explain the circumstances, and that if explained, the case should have been treated under Section 73, not Section 74. The respondent argued that show cause notices and orders were uploaded to the portal, and the petitioner filed the writ petition belatedly without availing the opportunity. The tax period in dispute is the assessment year 2022-23. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but it is mentioned that over 50% of the tax liability has been realized.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2025. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court reasoned that an opportunity should be extended to the petitioner to present their case, especially considering that over 50% of the tax liability had already been realized. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent, file necessary replies, produce supporting documents, and cooperate for expeditious completion of proceedings. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The freezing of the petitioner's bank account was also ordered to be raised. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core decision was to grant a fresh opportunity to the petitioner to present their case, implying a re-evaluation of whether proceedings should indeed be under Section 74 or Section 73.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2025, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, showing non-application of mind, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 74 and Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper application of mind and that the circumstances warranted proceedings under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, rather than Section 74. They contended that they were unable to effectively present their case and explain the discrepancies, leading to the impugned order. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that show cause notices and the impugned order were duly uploaded to the portal, and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided. They asserted that the petitioner filed the writ petition belatedly after missing the opportunity to respond.