Tvl Nmr Agencies vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner approached the Court long after the impugned order was passed. It noted that the order was preceded by a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices, to which the petitioner neither replied nor appeared. The Court, following its consistent view in similar circumstances, decided to grant relief to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. The Court held that the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax within thirty days of receiving the order and also file a reply to the show cause notice, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The issue of the validity of the original order was not decided on merits but was set aside conditionally.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.NMR Agencies, represented by its Proprietor Mr.Nadarajan, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 03.12.2024, issued by the Respondent, State Tax Officer, Ettaiyapuram Assessment Circle, Tuticorin. This order pertained to the tax period 2017-18. The impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 28.05.2024 and three personal hearing notices. The petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause notice nor appeared for the personal hearings, a fact noted in the impugned order. The petitioner approached the High Court after the order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, issued in FORM GST DRC-07 by the Respondent, State Tax Officer, should be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularities or lack of opportunity to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order, implying a challenge to its validity, likely due to the absence of a proper hearing or opportunity to present their case, as they did not appear for the personal hearings or reply to the show cause notice. The writ petition itself indicates a grievance against the order. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the fact that the impugned order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing notices suggests the respondent's position was that due process was followed, and the order was justified based on the available information.