Vignesh vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 14.06.2024. The Court found that the assessment order dated 06.12.2023 was passed without the petitioner's participation in the adjudication proceedings, despite notices being issued. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to participate, the matter should be remitted back for fresh consideration. The ratio is that an assessment order passed without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard or respond to notices is unsustainable and warrants remittance. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice, and the petitioner was to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondent was then to pass fresh orders on merits within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Vignesh, challenged an order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Sattur-I Circle. This order rejected the petitioner's application for rectification under Section 161 of the TNGST Act 2017/GCST Act 2017, which was filed after a prior rejection of a rectification application on 06.12.2023. The initial assessment order for the tax period 2017-18 was passed pursuant to a notice dated 30.06.2023. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the assessment order as he had not filed a reply, despite it being posted on the web portal. The respondent rejected the rectification application, stating that the power of rectification is limited to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and does not involve further arguments or submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification under Section 161 of the TNGST Act 2017/GCST Act 2017, considering the petitioner's claim of being unaware of the assessment proceedings and the nature of the alleged mistake. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order for the tax period 2017-18 was passed without his participation, as he was unaware of the notices and the subsequent assessment order. He contended that his applications for rectification under Section 161 were wrongly rejected. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent to pass a rectification order and drop the assessment. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Government Advocate, argued that the power of rectification is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to debatable points of law or undisputed questions of fact, as stated in the impugned order.