M/S.Star Accessories vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Star Accessories, represented by its Proprietor A. Sulaiman, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Tax Building, Aruppkottai. This order was issued due to a mismatch between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner also challenged subsequent orders dated 09.12.2025 and 28.01.2026, which rejected their applications for rectification. The petitioner contended that the tax amount had already been paid via Form DRC-03, which was uploaded but could not be accessed by the authorities due to a technical defect. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without application of mind and in violation of natural justice principles.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to appear before the authorities and contest the matter on merits. The impugned order dated 04.09.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority without fail and submit their reply and supporting documents. The respondent was directed to consider the reply and pass a fresh assessment order expeditiously. The Court found that the petitioner's claim of having paid the tax under Form DRC-03, and the alleged technical defect preventing its access, warranted a fresh opportunity for adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that where a taxpayer claims to have made a payment which was not considered due to technical glitches, and this leads to adverse orders without proper adjudication, the matter should be remitted for a fresh hearing to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, and the subsequent rejection orders for rectification, are liable to be quashed for non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission of payment under Form DRC-03? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without considering the payment made under Form DRC-03, which was uploaded but allegedly inaccessible to the respondent due to technical issues. They contended that this constituted a non-application of mind and a violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought to have the orders quashed. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim or the alleged technical defect. The focus of the respondent's role, as implied by the court's order, was to respond to the petitioner's challenge.