Tvl C S Chandrasekaran Sons vs. The State Of Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.C.S.Chandrasekaran Sons, represented by its partner C.Siva Murugan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Mudukulathur Assessment Circle. This order was preceded by a notice in DRC 01 dated 29.11.2024. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the tax period 2020-21. The primary grounds for challenge were the violation of principles of natural justice and that the order was passed beyond the statutory period of limitation.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 06.03.2025 was passed without proper application of mind, as indicated by the lack of clarity regarding the filing of the return for the tax period 2020-21. The Court found that the order was likely barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the respective GST enactments. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 29.11.2024 within thirty days, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within two months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the directions, the respondent would be at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the respondent, is barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the respective GST enactments, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that it was passed beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the respective GST enactments. The petitioner also contended that there was no application of mind by the respondent in passing the order. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent was represented by the Government Advocate.