Tvl. Eloiacs Softwa Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Eloiacs Softwa Private Limited, challenged two orders: one from the State Tax Officer (first respondent) dated 30.11.2024, confirming a demand proposed in a show cause notice dated 20.08.2024 for the assessment year 2023-24, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The second order, from the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (second respondent) dated 22.05.2025, rejected the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order due to a delay of 42 days. The petitioner stated they did not file a reply to the show cause notice. The respondents argued the writ petition lacked merit, citing Supreme Court decisions.

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the first respondent. The reasoning was based on the consistent view adopted by the Court in similar matters. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for an opportunity to be heard. The operative directions require the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days and file a reply to the show cause notice, treating the assessment order as an addendum. Upon compliance, the first respondent is directed to pass a fresh order after providing a personal hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal, thus requiring only the remaining 15% for compliance. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.11.2024, passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly concerning the alleged lack of opportunity for a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the rejection order of the appeal dated 22.05.2025 by the second respondent, on the ground of a 42-day delay in filing, is sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that both impugned orders were illegal and arbitrary, and that they were denied a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. They sought to quash both orders and prayed for a fresh order after affording a personal hearing. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, relying on Supreme Court decisions in M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others, CCE and Customs vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd., and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and Others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.