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 passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2019-20, and consequential demand notices dated 16.07.2025. 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, citing the need to receive guidance from superior authorities. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and consequential demand notices. While acknowledging that the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance at the personal hearings was not acceptable, the Court took into account the fact that the interest of the temple was involved. The Court remanded the matter to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 15.12.2025 and produce all relevant records, submitting a reply in person on that date. The respondent was directed to proceed in the matter as per law thereafter. No specific finding was given on the merits of the assessment itself, as the matter was remanded for a fresh opportunity to be heard.

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, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance at the personal hearings was acceptable, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order and consequential demand notices were passed without providing them with a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing, and that the documents furnished by them were not considered. They sought a direction to the respondent to redo the assessment. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings on three occasions, despite notices being issued. The petitioner's explanation for non-appearance was not considered acceptable by the respondent.