Tvl Sri Bala Abirami Matching Centre vs. The Proper Officer / State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Bala Abirami Matching Centre, challenged an assessment order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Proper Officer/State Tax Officer and a summary order reference number ZD331224273160W dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner contended that while notices were uploaded on the GST portal, a rectification application filed on 19.03.2024 was rejected, and a rectified order was issued with the same demand, resulting in an ex-parte order. The respondents argued that the petitioner had knowledge of the notices and the rejection of the rectification application, and had not challenged the rectified order, praying for dismissal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the assessment proceedings as notices were uploaded on the web portal, and they had indeed filed a rectification application on 19.03.2024. The second respondent considered this application and passed a rectified order on 31.12.2024, albeit with the same demand. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps to challenge this rectification order for approximately 1.5 years. Given this inaction on the part of the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment proceedings for the year 2017-18, culminating in the impugned orders dated 26.12.2023 and 31.12.2024, are illegal and devoid of merits, warranting quashing and a direction to redo the assessment proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite filing a rectification application, the respondents issued a rectified order with the same demand, effectively passing an ex-parte order against them. They sought to quash these orders and have the assessment proceedings redone. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner had knowledge of the notices issued and had filed a rectification application, which was rejected. They further argued that the petitioner failed to challenge the rectified order and therefore prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.