R Vellaisamy vs. The State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection)
Held
The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 04.04.2025 was to be set aside and quashed. The reasoning was that the petitioner had approached the Court in time before the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that their reply, filed through a Chartered Accountant, was not properly considered, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days of receiving the order, with the quashed order to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner's frozen account was ordered to be defreezed. Failure by the petitioner to comply with the conditions would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, R. Vellaisamy, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection), Intelligence, Trichy Division. This order confirmed a demand proposed in DRC-01 dated 24.12.2024 for the assessment year 2023-2024. The petitioner contended that their Chartered Accountant had filed a reply on 25.03.2025, but the impugned order stated that a proper reply was not given. The petitioner approached the High Court within the limitation period for filing an appeal. The second respondent, Indian Overseas Bank, was also impleaded as the petitioner's account was frozen.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 04.04.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection), is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting its quashment and remittance for fresh assessment for the year 2023-24? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had engaged a Chartered Accountant who filed a reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order, however, erroneously stated that no proper reply was given, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also submitted that they approached the Court within the time limit for filing an appeal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue (State Tax Officer-1).
Sections Cited
DRC-01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P(MD)Nos.17381 and 17382 of 2025 R.Vellaisamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection), Officer of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Intelligence, Trichy Division, Trichy. 2.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Abishekapuram Branch, Trichy - 620 020. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of the first respondent in GSTIN. 33ACXPV7218G1Z0/2023-24 vide reference No. ZD330425050737D dated 04.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and violation of principal natural justice and remit back and redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2023-24 within time frame fixed by this Court. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner : Mr.I.Velpradeep For R1 : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.