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, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 10.07.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19, passed under the TNGST Act, 2017, and consequential demand notices dated 16.07.2025. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a redo of the assessment after being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of submitted documents. The assessment order was passed by the respondent, 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.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and demand notices. Although the respondent's contention that the petitioner failed to appear for hearings was noted, the Court, considering the interest of the temple, decided to remand the matter. The Court reasoned that a reasonable opportunity of hearing should be provided. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 15.12.2025 with all relevant records and submit a reply in person. The respondent is to proceed with the matter as per law thereafter. The issue of whether the initial assessment order was passed without a proper opportunity of hearing was implicitly decided in favour of the petitioner by the quashing and remand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.07.2025 passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed due to the petitioner not being afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were not given a proper and effective opportunity to be heard, as evidenced by their repeated requests for time to consult with superior authorities and submit documents. They sought a fresh assessment with adequate hearing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings on three occasions and their explanation for absence was not acceptable. The respondent proceeded to pass the assessment order based on the available information.