J J Rubbers vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. J. J. Rubbers, represented by its Proprietor Jayakumar Chellan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Thuckalay-1 Assessment Circle. This order was preceded by a notice in DRC 01 dated 20.11.2024. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner had not filed a reply to the notice nor participated in the personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017. They also prayed for a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity and following CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST.

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned order dated 21.02.2025. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they have a fair case and the need to provide an opportunity to explain their position. The Court followed a consistent view of the High Court in similar matters. The case was remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders. The operative directions stipulated that the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner is also required to file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 20.11.2024, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months after hearing the petitioner. Failure to comply with these conditions would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, passed for the tax period 2020-21, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of alleged violations of Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017 and CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording a sufficient opportunity and in violation of Rule 36(4) of the TNGST Rules 2017 and CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST. They sought an opportunity to explain their case afresh. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's position was considered in the context of the petitioner's failure to participate in the proceedings.