Tvl Kavin Karuthiah vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned assessment order dated 11.11.2024 on terms. The reasoning was based on precedent where similar assessment orders were set aside when the petitioner paid 25% of the disputed tax. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness can be restored by allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, even after non-compliance, provided a partial payment of the disputed tax is made. The operative directions are: the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. The petitioner must also file a reply to the show cause notice within a specified time, and the quashed order will be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Kavin Karuthiah, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the tax period 2021-2022. The impugned order was issued after a show cause notice dated 19.09.2023 and three personal hearing notices. The petitioner failed to respond to these notices by filing a reply or appearing before the respondent. The Court noted that in similar circumstances, it had previously quashed assessment orders on the condition of the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and personal hearing notices, and if so, what relief can be granted? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and requested a direction to redo the assessment proceedings. While not explicitly stated, the implication is that the petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's contention: The respondent passed the assessment order due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the notices. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent beyond the factual basis for the order.