C.Murugan vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, C. Murugan, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Pudukottai, for the assessment year 2022-2023. This order was preceded by an Intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 26.09.2022 and a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.12.2022. The petitioner failed to file a reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time, leading to the impugned assessment order. The petitioner also did not file an appeal under Section 107 or seek rectification under Section 161 of the GST enactments.

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned assessment order and remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving the order. Subject to this condition, the assessment order was quashed. The petitioner was also directed to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice, treating the quashed assessment order as an addendum, along with the deposit, within thirty days. The respondent is to pass a fresh order within three months from the receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to comply with these conditions, the respondent is at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, 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, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was flawed due to being cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Pudukottai, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the context implies that the revenue sought to uphold the assessment order or at least recover the tax due.