Tvl Velmurugan Marketing vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.VELMURUGAN MARKETING, filed two writ petitions challenging orders in Form GST DRC 07, dated 08.04.2024 and 17.04.2024, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni. The petitions concern the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that two assessment orders were passed for the same period by different officers, and that the defects raised were already addressed and tax paid. Crucially, the impugned orders were passed after the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 08.06.2022, and were ex parte. The respondent argued that the second order was for a different defect.

Held

The Court allowed both writ petitions. The Court found it inexplicable how two assessment orders could be passed for the same assessment year (2018-2019) within a short span of less than 10 days, and by different assessing officers. The Court also noted that the impugned orders were passed ex parte after the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 08.06.2022. While the respondent claimed the second order was for a different defect, the Court observed that these aspects were not adequately dealt with by the respondent. Consequently, taking into account the substantial contentions raised by the petitioner, both orders were set aside. The matter was remitted to the respondent, who was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and pass a single order for the assessment year in question. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. The ratio decidendi is that procedural irregularities, including the issuance of multiple orders for the same period, passing orders post-cancellation of registration, and ex parte proceedings without proper consideration of the assessee's contentions, warrant setting aside the orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration after issuing proper notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of two assessment orders for the same tax period (2018-2019) by different assessing officers is legally sustainable, particularly when one order was passed less than 10 days after the first? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether assessment orders passed after the cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration are valid and have jurisdiction? (Question of law, concerning the validity of actions taken post-registration cancellation). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the issuance of multiple assessment orders for the same period by different officers was erroneous and lacked jurisdiction. They also contended that the defects were already addressed and tax paid. Furthermore, the orders were passed ex parte after their registration was cancelled, violating statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the second assessment order was issued to address a different defect not covered by the first order. The respondent did not explicitly address the issue of orders being passed post-cancellation of registration or the ex parte nature of the proceedings in the provided text.