Velmurugan Marketing vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Velmurugan Marketing, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07, dated August 6, 2024, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2. The petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The respondent is the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2. The core of the dispute revolves around the issuance of two assessment orders for the same defect and the same assessment year. The judgment does not specify the tax period(s) or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the issuance of two assessment orders for the very same defect and for the very same assessment year by the respondent constitutes a clear case of duplication. On this sole ground, the impugned order was quashed. The Court found that this duplication rendered the order invalid and without proper legal basis. The ratio decidendi is that an authority cannot pass multiple orders for the same infraction and period, as this leads to arbitrariness and violates principles of natural justice and statutory compliance. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were consequently closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order, Form GST DRC-07 Ref.No. ZD330824038633D dated 06.08.2024, issued by the Respondent is without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffers from a lack of jurisdiction and a clear violation of statutory provisions. The primary basis for this argument, as highlighted by the Court, is that two assessment orders have been passed by the respondent for the very same defect and for the very same assessment year, constituting a duplication. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent did not effectively counter the petitioner's claim of duplication and lack of jurisdiction.