Tvl. Ooty Masala vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ooty Masala, represented by its Proprietrix G. Revathy, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Karur, for the assessment year 2021-22 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. This order followed a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025, for which a personal hearing was scheduled, but the petitioner did not attend. The petitioner contended that their business of flour, masala, and allied food products involves exempted supplies. The writ petition was filed on 25.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner agreed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 11.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for denovo adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission that their supplies are exempted under the GST enactments and their willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The petitioner was directed to deposit this amount in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent is to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent can recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must provide due notice before passing any further order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the petitioner's failure to appear for a personal hearing and their subsequent claim of exempted supplies. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their supplies are exempted under the GST enactments and that the assessment order was passed without proper adjudication. They sought a fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard and were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel took notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent beyond their representation. However, the respondent issued the impugned order and the preceding show cause notice.