M/S.D.V.Chakkaravarthi vs. The State Tax Officer-I

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.D.V.Chakkaravarthi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer-I, Data Analytics. The impugned order was passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice was issued on 04.06.2025, to which they had filed a reply on 03.07.2025, along with supporting documents like the profit and loss account and Form 26AS. However, the respondent passed the impugned order stating that the reply was filed without supporting documents, thus violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the profit and loss account and Form 26AS were not filed, preventing adjudication. The petitioner then offered to furnish the documents again and undertake to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 appeared to have been passed without properly considering the supporting documents filed by the petitioner, specifically the profit and loss account and Form 26AS, which were submitted with their reply to the show cause notice. The Court noted that the impugned order stated no supporting documents were filed, which contradicted the petitioner's claim. This non-consideration led to the matter not being adjudicated properly. In the interest of justice, and considering the petitioner's undertaking to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- and furnish all required documents again, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee violates principles of natural justice and warrants setting aside and remand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not considering the supporting documents filed by the petitioner along with their reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had submitted all necessary supporting documents, including the profit and loss account and Form 26AS, with their reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order erroneously stated that no supporting documents were filed, indicating a failure to consider the submitted evidence and a violation of natural justice. They sought to set aside the order. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the profit and loss account and Form 26AS were not filed by the petitioner, which prevented them from adjudicating the matter. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the proposals in the show cause notice was passed.