M/S. Sivaguru Marketing vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 20.02.2025, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice in Form GST DRC 01 dated 28.09.2024. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply within 30 days of receiving the order. The respondent was granted liberty to pass an order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. The Court held that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the writ petition would be deemed dismissed, and the respondent could proceed to recover the dues. The ratio is that procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard are paramount, and a conditional quashing with a direction for fresh adjudication is appropriate when there are procedural lapses, provided the petitioner shows willingness to comply with certain financial obligations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sivaguru Marketing, represented by its Proprietrix D. Chithra, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural South Assessment Circle, for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner sought to quash the said order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also requested a direction to the respondent to issue a fresh notice and pass an assessment order after providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The respondent is the State Tax Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2020-21, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, warranting its quashment? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh notice and an opportunity to present their case before a fresh assessment order is passed? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment after being provided with sufficient opportunity. The petitioner was willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax to have the impugned order set aside, with liberty to file a detailed reply to the notice dated 28.09.2024 (GST DRC 01). Respondent's Contentions: The judgment records the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, indicating their participation in the proceedings. However, specific arguments made by the respondent are not detailed in the provided text.