Lakshmi Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner St

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated 14.02.2025 was liable to be quashed on terms, considering the marginal delay and the violation of principles of natural justice. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that they were not properly heard during the personal hearing. To provide relief, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Ledger and 15% from the Electronic Credit Ledger within 30 days. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within a stipulated time, and the quashed assessment order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. The Court made it clear that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the dismissal of the writ petition. The issue of the order being cryptic and non-speaking was implicitly addressed by directing a fresh order on merits after proper hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, Lakshmi Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural South Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2020-2021. The impugned order was preceded by a notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 26.11.2024, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply. The petitioner contended that they failed to notice the assessment order in time and consequently could not file an appeal within the period of limitation, which expired on 13.06.2025. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that despite the order mentioning a personal hearing, they were not actually heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also made submissions on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 14.02.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice as they were not afforded a proper hearing despite the order stating otherwise. They also contended that the order was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking proper reasoning. The petitioner sought to quash the order and for a fresh assessment after an opportunity of being heard. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Revenue).