Tvl. S2 Trade Associates vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner failed to respond to the notices issued in Form GST DRC-01, the impugned orders should be quashed to provide an opportunity for a fresh assessment. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for each impugned order within 30 days. Upon compliance, the impugned orders would stand quashed, and the case would be remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders within three months, ensuring the petitioner is heard before such orders are passed. The Court treated the impugned orders as addendums to the Show Cause Notices, requiring the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days. If the petitioner fails to comply with the deposit requirement, the writ petition would stand dismissed, and the respondent would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.S2 Trade Associates, filed a writ petition challenging two orders passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Karur. The impugned orders were dated 28.12.2023 and 05.02.2024, pertaining to the tax periods 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 respectively. The petitioner sought to quash these orders on grounds of illegality, impropriety, unreasonableness, and violation of natural justice, requesting a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. The respondent had issued notices in Form GST DRC-01 on 29.09.2023 and 12.07.2023, to which the petitioner allegedly failed to respond. The High Court heard both parties at the admission stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders dated 28.12.2023 and 05.02.2024, passed by the respondent, are liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, under the relevant provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed without providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They sought a fresh assessment with a proper hearing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the notices issued in Form GST DRC-01 for both assessment periods, indicating a lack of engagement from the petitioner's side. The respondent relied on the consistent view of the Court in similar circumstances.