Sheik Meeran Beer Mohamed Ashik Meeran vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - I

Facts

The petitioner, Sheik Meeran Beer Mohamed Aashik Meeran, proprietor of Tvl. Famous Ice Products, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form DRC-07 under Rule 142 of the GST Rules and a consequential order under Section 73 of the Act, both dated 29.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-I. The petitioner contended that the tax demand was enhanced from Rs. 2,58,326/- to Rs. 4,53,780/- for the period 2021-2022 without any basis, jurisdiction, or an opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh order after a personal hearing. The respondents conceded that the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2025 was liable to be set aside on the ground that it travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the lack of a personal hearing and the enhancement of the tax demand without proper basis. The Court agreed with the respondents' submission that the matter should be remanded. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was set aside. The Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner was given four weeks to submit a reply. The concerned authority was directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner after issuing at least seven days' advance notice and then pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the authority should not be influenced by any observations made by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act and Rule 142 of the GST Rules, is liable to be set aside for travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice and for violating the principles of natural justice by not affording a personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed beyond the scope of the show cause notice and the provisions of the GST Act. Specifically, the tax demand was enhanced from Rs. 2,58,326/- to Rs. 4,53,780/- without any basis. This enhancement was made without jurisdiction and without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsustainable as it travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, admitted that the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. However, they suggested that the impugned order could be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner could be directed to submit a reply, following which the matter could be remanded back to the authority for fresh consideration.