G Sankar Timber Depot vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated January 27, 2025, and remitted the case back to the respondent. The reasoning was based on the fact that 25% of the disputed tax had already been recovered, and the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings due to alleged non-receipt of notice. The Court found that the impugned order was passed without any reply from the petitioner or a personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, especially when the petitioner claims non-receipt of notice, can be quashed and remitted for fresh consideration. The operative direction is for the respondent to pass a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the notice dated November 25, 2024, within 30 days, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice.

Facts

The petitioner, G. Sankar Timber Depot, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 27, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer. This order followed a notice in Form GST DRC 01 dated November 25, 2024. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notice and the subsequent order, stating they were posted online. The respondent had initiated recovery proceedings, collecting a total sum of Rs. 2,47,289 on May 6, 2024, and June 2, 2025. The petitioner had not filed an appeal against the impugned order within the stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 27, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer is liable to be quashed for being passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating statutory provisions? The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the notice dated November 25, 2024, and the subsequent order dated January 27, 2025, as they were only posted on the online portal. They contended that the order was passed without considering any reply or providing a personal hearing, making it devoid of jurisdiction and a violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner also highlighted that a significant portion of the disputed tax (25%) had already been recovered. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but the context implies they sought to uphold the order.