M/S.Sri Modern Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for interference with the impugned order. The primary reason for this decision was that the impugned order explicitly recorded that the petitioner had not filed a reply, despite the petitioner having submitted a reply on 22.01.2025, which was duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC-06. This factual discrepancy rendered the order unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 18.02.2025. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner's reply is considered and an opportunity for a personal hearing is provided before passing final orders. The Court directed that this be done expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Modern Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed despite the petitioner having filed a reply to the show cause notice (DRC-01 dated 29.11.2024) on 22.01.2025, which was duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC-06. The impugned order incorrectly stated that no reply was received. The petitioner also filed an application for rectification of this order on 08.05.2025, which was rejected on 10.06.2025 based on a Board circular. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and for a fresh order after considering their replies and providing a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the respondent State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2020-21, is liable to be quashed as nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission that a reply was filed and acknowledged, contrary to the order's assertion that no reply was received. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is fundamentally flawed as it erroneously states that no reply was filed to the show cause notice, whereas the petitioner had indeed filed a reply on 22.01.2025, which was acknowledged. The subsequent rejection of the rectification application, based on a Board circular, further compounded the issue. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order and a fresh adjudication after considering their submissions and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, took notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent against the petitioner's contentions.