The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer vs. The State Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing)

Facts

The petitioner, the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer of Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameswaram, challenged an assessment order dated 10.07.2025 and consequential demand notices dated 16.07.2025, passed under the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2023-24. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a redo of the assessment after affording an effective opportunity of hearing and considering submitted documents. The impugned order was passed by the State Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing). The petitioner had failed to appear for personal hearings on three occasions, citing a need for guidance from superiors, which the respondent found unacceptable. However, considering the temple's interests, the High Court decided to intervene.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 10.07.2025 and the consequential demand notices dated 16.07.2025. The Court found that while the petitioner's explanation for not appearing for personal hearings was not entirely acceptable, the interest of the temple was involved. Therefore, to ensure fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 15.12.2025 with all relevant records and submit a reply in person. The respondent was then directed to proceed with the assessment in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that this writ petition stands allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.07.2025 and consequential demand notices dated 16.07.2025, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed due to lack of effective opportunity of hearing for the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before the assessment order was passed. They sought to have the assessment redone after providing such an opportunity and considering the documents they had furnished. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that personal hearing notices were issued on three occasions, but the petitioner failed to appear. The petitioner's explanation for non-appearance, citing a need for guidance from superiors, was deemed unacceptable by the respondent. The respondent passed the assessment order based on the available information.