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

Facts

The petitioner, the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameswaram, challenged an assessment order dated July 10, 2025, and consequential demand notices dated July 16, 2025, passed under the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the respondent authority had not afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing and had not considered the documents furnished. The respondent is the State Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing). The impugned order was passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had sought time on three occasions for personal hearing, citing the need for guidance from superior authorities, which the respondent found unacceptable.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and consequential demand notices. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner's explanation for seeking adjournments was not acceptable, the interest of the temple was involved. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the matter was remanded to the respondent for a fresh assessment. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on December 15, 2025, produce all relevant records, and submit a reply in person. The respondent was then to proceed with the matter as per law. The Court expressly did not decide on the merits of the assessment itself, but rather on the procedural fairness of the initial assessment process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and consequential demand notices passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically for not affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent authority failed to provide a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing and did not consider the documents submitted. They sought to quash the impugned assessment order and demand notices and requested a redo of the assessment with proper hearing and consideration of documents. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not explicitly present arguments against the petitioner's claims in the provided text. However, the judgment notes that the respondent found the petitioner's explanation for seeking adjournments unacceptable.