Sri Vinayaga Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner deserved a chance to explain their case afresh. The impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2023 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Respondent for fresh consideration. The amount already recovered from the Petitioner would be subject to further orders to be passed pursuant to the demand proceedings. The Court directed that the entire exercise of fresh consideration be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of, and no costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Vinayaga Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Palakkarai Assessment Circle, Tiruchirappalli, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the show cause notice (Form GST DRC 01, dated 04.10.2023), a previous notice (DRC 01A, dated 22.09.2023), and a notice in ASMT-10 (dated 29.07.2023) due to reliance on their chartered accountant and tax practitioner, leading to an ex parte order. The disputed tax amount was recovered from the petitioner on 11.05.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the Respondent, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, as argued by the Petitioner? 2. Whether the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to explain their case afresh, given that the entire disputed tax amount has already been recovered, as submitted by the Petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte due to the failure of their chartered accountant and tax practitioner to inform them about the show cause notice and other preceding notices. They claimed to have a fair case and sought a chance to present their explanation, especially since the tax had already been recovered. Respondent's Contentions: The Respondent did not record any specific arguments against the Petitioner's submissions in the judgment.