Tvl Paramasivam Subramanian Raju vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Held

The Court held that the notice dated 14.05.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner was indeed without jurisdiction, as proceedings had already been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner for the same period. The Court further observed that the second order dated 24.08.2024, by which the Deputy State Tax Officer dropped the proceedings, was non-est in law. However, considering the fact that a superior officer had dropped the proceedings, the Court found it untenable to have two separate proceedings for the same period. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The first respondent was directed to pass a fresh order in light of the order dated 24.08.2024, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, to be completed within three months. The ratio decidendi is that conflicting orders for the same tax period, particularly when a superior authority drops proceedings, necessitate a fresh adjudication with due process.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Paramasivam Subramanian Raju, proprietor of 7 Star Constructions, challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner(ST) on 11.08.2024 (summary dated 10.08.2024) under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. This order followed a notice in GST DRC 01 dated 27.12.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner received another notice dated 14.05.2024 from the Deputy Commissioner. Crucially, after the impugned order, the Deputy State Tax Officer dropped the proceedings by an order dated 24.08.2024. The petitioner argued that the notice dated 14.05.2024 was without jurisdiction and that two separate orders were passed for the same period. The revenue did not present arguments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 14.05.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction, given that proceedings had already been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner for the same period. 2. Whether the existence of two separate orders for the same period, one imposing liability and another dropping proceedings, renders the impugned order invalid. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice dated 14.05.2024 was issued without jurisdiction as proceedings had already commenced with the Assistant Commissioner's notice dated 27.12.2023, which culminated in the impugned order. The petitioner also highlighted that the Deputy State Tax Officer had dropped the proceedings by an order dated 24.08.2024, creating a conflict with the impugned order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.