Tvl. Krishna Technologies And Services vs. Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Krishna Technologies and Services, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 17.02.2025 and a consequential order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer II and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer respectively. The petitioner contended that the first respondent dropped proceedings initiated by a DRC-07 dated 01.12.2025 on 17.02.2025, but on the same date, passed an order confirming the demand. A similar order was passed on 30.06.2025. The respondents conceded that the orders were passed in error, with the confirmation order and DRC order being dropped and a confirmation order issued on the same day due to an error. They requested that the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 along with the annexure dated 17.02.2025 be quashed, and the order dated 17.02.2025 regarding dropping proceedings be set aside and remanded.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 along with the annexure order dated 17.02.2025 shall stand quashed. Furthermore, the order dated 17.02.2025 concerning the dropping of proceedings was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks of receiving any communication or order. Upon receipt of the reply, the first respondent is to afford an opportunity to the petitioner and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the respondents that the orders were passed in error. The ratio decidendi is that where tax authorities concede that orders were passed erroneously and in violation of procedural fairness, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can quash and remand such orders for proper adjudication after affording natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 and the annexure order dated 17.02.2025 are illegal, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting quashing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the orders were passed in an illegal and contradictory manner, with proceedings being dropped and confirmed on the same day, and a subsequent similar order being issued, thereby violating principles of natural justice and potentially being barred by limitation. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents conceded that the orders were passed in error. Specifically, the confirmation order and DRC order were dropped, and a confirmation order was issued on the same day due to an error. The respondents requested that the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 along with the annexure dated 17.02.2025 be quashed, and the order dated 17.02.2025 regarding the dropping of proceedings be set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration.