The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer vs. The State Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing)
Facts
The petitioner, the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameswaram, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 10.07.2025 passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2018-19, and consequential demand notices. The petitioner contended that they were not afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing and sought to have the assessment redone. The respondent is the State Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing). The petitioner had failed to appear for personal hearings on three occasions, instead seeking adjournments to receive guidance from superior authorities. The court noted that the explanation for non-appearance was not acceptable.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance at the personal hearings was not acceptable, the interest of the temple was involved. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 15.12.2025 with all relevant records and submit their reply in person. The respondent is to proceed with the assessment as per law thereafter. The writ petition was allowed on these terms. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core issue of whether the original assessment was flawed due to lack of opportunity was resolved by remanding the matter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for not affording the petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing? (Mixed question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard and to present their documents, necessitating the quashing of the assessment order and a direction to redo the assessment. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings on multiple occasions, despite notices being issued, and their explanation for non-appearance was not acceptable. The respondent did not explicitly argue against the need for an effective hearing but highlighted the petitioner's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 W.P.(MD)NO.34561 OF 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.34561 of 2025 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.27339 of 2025 The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, O/o.the Joint Commissioner Inspection, Virudhunagar – 626 001. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned assessment order dated 10.07.2025 GSTIN:332400002493TMP/2019-20 for the assessment year 2018-19 passed under the TNGST Act, 2017 and the consequential demand notices in Form-GST DRC-07 and quash the same and direct the respondent to redo the assessment after affording the petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing and to consider the documents furnished by the petitioner. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.P.(MD)NO.34561 OF 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.