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 July 10, 2025, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2022-23, and consequential demand notices dated July 16, 2025. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a redo of the assessment after being afforded an effective opportunity of hearing and consideration of 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, seeking time due to awaiting guidance from superiors.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's explanation for not appearing for the personal hearings was not entirely acceptable, the interest of the temple was involved. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order and consequential demand notices. The Court reasoned that despite the petitioner's non-compliance, a fresh opportunity should be granted to ensure fairness. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving significant public interest or the interest of religious institutions, even if there is some procedural lapse on the part of the assessee, the revenue should provide a reasonable opportunity to present their case before finalizing an assessment. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on December 15, 2025, produce all relevant records, and submit a reply in person. The respondent was directed to proceed with the matter as per law thereafter. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing a proper and effective opportunity for hearing, despite the petitioner's attempts to seek time due to procedural delays in receiving guidance from higher authorities. The petitioner sought to have the assessment redone with due opportunity. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, the State Tax Officer, argued that personal hearing notices were issued on multiple occasions, and the petitioner's failure to appear and the reasons provided were not acceptable. The respondent's action was based on the available information and the petitioner's non-compliance with the hearing notices.