Alfa Flugs Electrodes vs. The State Tax Officer 1
Held
The Court held that the assessment order was passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to present their case, particularly concerning the input tax credit mismatch. The respondent's failure to provide the petitioner with the mismatch data and a physical copy of the assessment order was found to be a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment order and the distraint notice. To protect revenue, the petitioner was directed to pay 10% of the demand within two weeks. Upon such payment, the respondent was ordered to redo the assessment, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard, within three months. The bank attachment would be lifted upon the deposit of 10% of the demand.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Alfa Flugs Electrodes, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 20.11.2024 and a consequential distraint notice dated 08.04.2025, both issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer-1. The petitioner contended that the assessment order, which dealt with input tax credit mismatch, was passed without providing the petitioner with the mismatch data or a physical copy. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the order until the distraint proceedings were initiated. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity and following relevant circulars.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 20.11.2024 and the consequential distraint notice dated 08.04.2025 are liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing the petitioner with the mismatch data and a physical copy of the assessment order, thereby denying an opportunity to be heard, as contemplated under the TNGST Rules 2017 and relevant CBIC Circulars? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide the mismatch data and a physical copy of the assessment order, rendering the order void for lack of opportunity. They relied on the principles of natural justice and CBIC Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Rule 36(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.05.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P(MD)No.10512 of 2025 M/s.Alfa Flugs Electrodes, GSTIN 33AAAFA7151N1ZI, Represented by its Managing Partner T.Vasanthan, 178/2A2, NA, Thuraiyur Road, Pulivalam, Tiruchirapalli – 621 006. ... Petitioner vs. The State Tax Officere-1, Thuraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy.
... Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN 33AAAFA7151N1ZI/2020-21, dated 20.11.2024 and consequential distrain notice dated, 08/04/2025 and to quash the same as illegal arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and in violation of the Rule 36(4) of TNGST Rules 2017, and to direct the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner then pass an assessment order afresh after affording an sufficient opportunity by following CBIC CIRCULAR NO. 193/05/2023-GST [F. NO. CBIC-20001/5/2023-GST], dated 17.7.2023, within such time as may be directed by this C
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.