Tvl Dck Woods vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. DCK Woods, represented by its proprietor, challenged an assessment order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Nagercoil. This order demanded tax of Rs.4,58,256/- along with interest and penalty. The petitioner argued that the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. A significant fact highlighted was that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 23.03.2023, preventing them from accessing the web portal where the impugned order was uploaded. The petitioner undertook to remit 10% of the disputed amount within four weeks.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 17.02.2025 was liable to be set aside. The Court agreed with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s.Katyal Industries Vs. State of UP and others, finding them applicable to the present facts. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's arguments regarding the order being cryptic, non-speaking, and potentially issued without proper procedure, especially in light of the cancelled registration. The Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner was granted thirty days from the receipt of the order to file a reply to this show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also made it clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the respondent could proceed against them, and the writ petition would be dismissed on the ground of laches. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account was to be lifted upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount as undertaken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 17.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind, citing it as cryptic and non-speaking. They further argued that the order was barred by limitation. Additionally, the petitioner asserted that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, especially given that their GST registration had been cancelled prior to the order's issuance, preventing them from accessing the web portal for communication. The petitioner relied on Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and decisions of the High Court of Allahabad in M/s.Ahs Steels Vs the Commissioner of State Taxes and others and M/s.Katyal Industries Vs. State of UP and others. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.