Tvl. Aishwarya Infrastructures vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 was issued without hearing the petitioner, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. As a condition for this relief, the petitioner was directed to remit 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the Respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within 5 months from the date of remittance, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. The Court also directed that the bank attachment relating to the impugned order shall be raised, subject to the fulfillment of the payment condition. The Writ Petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Aishwarya Infrastructures, represented by its Partner, S. Saranamdurai, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle. The impugned order, bearing reference number ZD330126035371W dated 07.01.2026, was issued under Section 74A(1) read with Section 74A(5)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2024-25. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary, non-speaking, violative of natural justice, and contrary to the CGST Act. The primary ground for challenge was the alleged breach of principles of natural justice, as the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, passed under Section 74A(1) read with Section 74A(5)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being arbitrary, non-speaking, and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically for being issued without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to them. They sought to quash the proceedings and direct the Respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel accepted notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent against the petitioner's claim of breach of natural justice, beyond accepting notice and the subsequent order being passed on the petitioner's submission.