M/S. Haris Enterprises vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the respondent. The Court noted that in similar circumstances where a detailed order was passed due to the petitioner's non-response to a show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.11.2023), it had consistently taken the view to quash such assessment orders. Finding no reason to deviate, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order. Concurrently, the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. Upon compliance, the respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within three months. Failure to comply with these stipulations empowers the respondent to proceed against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Haris Enterprises, represented by its partner Mohamed Ashraf, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Office, Ettayapuram Circle. The impugned order was preceded by a notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.11.2023. The petitioner had not responded to this show cause notice, leading to the passing of the detailed order by the respondent authority. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to reconsider the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed as illegal, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice dated 23.11.2023? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and have the matter reconsidered. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond seeking quashing and reconsideration, it implies a challenge to the final order due to procedural issues or an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner's counsel appeared, indicating an intent to argue the case. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for reconsideration. The judgment notes that the impugned order was passed because the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice.