M/S. Sri Sakthimurugan Crusher vs. The Commercial Tax Officer The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sakthimurugan Crusher, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of notices uploaded on the GST common portal and thus failed to file a reply, leading to the impugned order being passed without a personal hearing. The petitioner also stated that 80% of the disputed tax amount had already been recovered. The respondent argued that a show cause notice dated 25.11.2024 was sent physically, but the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. The Court noted a discrepancy where the postal acknowledgment indicated receipt of the notice dated 25.11.2024 on 23.11.2024, prior to its issuance.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 was passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of personal hearing. The discrepancy in the service of the show cause notice, where the acknowledgment showed receipt prior to issuance, indicated a lack of effective communication. Consequently, the Court found a lack of opportunity for the petitioner to effectively serve notices and orders. Considering that 80% of the disputed tax had already been recovered, the Court was inclined to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file their reply within three weeks, and upon receipt, the respondent was to issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order. The Court also directed the lifting of the attachment on the petitioner's bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 13.02.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, particularly concerning the lack of opportunity for personal hearing and the discrepancy in the service of the show cause notice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were not aware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal and therefore could not file a reply, resulting in the order being passed without a proper opportunity. They also highlighted that 80% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and sought an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that a physical notice dated 25.11.2024 was sent, and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. They argued that the order was passed appropriately.