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 10.07.2025 and consequential demand notices dated 16.07.2025, passed under the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2024-25. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a re-do of the assessment after being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of submitted documents. The impugned order was passed by the State Tax Officer (Intelligence Wing). The procedural history indicates that personal hearing notices were issued on three occasions, but the petitioner did not appear, instead requesting time due to awaiting guidance from superior authorities. The respondent is the State Tax Officer.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance on three occasions was not acceptable, the interest of the temple was involved. Therefore, the Court decided to quash the impugned assessment order and remand the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. 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 writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

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 contention: The petitioner argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Despite receiving personal hearing notices, they sought adjournments to consult with superior authorities, and their explanation for non-appearance should have been considered. They sought a remand to re-do the assessment with proper hearing and consideration of documents. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to appear on multiple occasions despite receiving notices, and their explanation for non-appearance was not acceptable. The respondent passed the assessment order based on the available information.