Tvl Namo Namo Transport vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Namo Namo Transport, represented by its Proprietor Muthu Irulan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer, Sivagangai Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a demand raised vide Show Cause Notice DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The confirmed demand included CGST and SGST, along with interest, penalty, and fees, totaling Rs. 12,56,982/-. The petitioner stated that a sum of Rs. 4,28,102/-, which was part of the confirmed demand, had already been reversed by them on 30.03.2022, but this reversal was not appropriated in the impugned order. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding the reversal.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 was liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by both the petitioner and the respondent. The Court noted that the petitioner had already reversed a part of the demand, and this fact was acknowledged by the respondent. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent for passing fresh orders on merits. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024, along with supporting documents, within thirty days of receiving the order. The respondent was then directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of receiving the petitioner's reply, after giving due notice. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the directions, the respondent would be at liberty to proceed for recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order that fails to consider crucial submissions or reversals made by the assessee, and is thus rendered non-speaking or erroneous, should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent failed to consider the reversal of a part of the demand by the petitioner on 30.03.2022, rendering the impugned order unsustainable? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. They further contended that the respondent failed to account for a sum of Rs. 4,28,102/-, which they had already reversed on 30.03.2022, despite this amount being part of the confirmed demand. Respondent's contentions: The respondent, through the Special Government Pleader, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed taking note of the reversal made by the petitioner on 30.03.2022.