M/S. Hotel Subhalakshmi Palace vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court held that the order of assessment dated 27.04.2024 was liable to be set aside. A perusal of the assessment order indicated that only a show cause notice in DRC-01 was issued on 26.11.2023, calling for objections within 30 days. The order did not reflect that an opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated under Section 73 of the Act, was granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, the order wrongly recorded that the petitioner had not appeared for a personal hearing, when no such hearing was granted. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who would then submit written objections and relevant documents. Thereafter, the first respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, providing reasons for its conclusion as mandated under Section 73 of the Act. The issue regarding the rejection of the appeal for belated filing was implicitly addressed by setting aside the original assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Subhalakshmi Palace, represented by its Proprietor S. Chandramohan, filed a writ petition challenging an order of assessment dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (ST), Karaikudi Assessment Circle, and a consequential rejection order dated 06.11.2024 issued by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. A DRC-01 notice was issued on 26.11.2023, but no personal hearing date was provided. The petitioner was unable to file a reply due to medical ill-health. Subsequently, the assessment order was passed without any determination and without granting a personal hearing, despite the order stating the petitioner did not appear for a hearing. The appeal filed against this order was rejected for belated filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of assessment dated 27.04.2024 passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction, particularly for failing to provide an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and contrary to the guidelines in Circular No.8/2024 dated 29.08.2024? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. They contended that the DRC-01 notice did not specify a personal hearing date, and the subsequent order wrongly recorded that the petitioner failed to appear for a hearing. The petitioner also relied on Circular No.8/2024 for procedural guidelines. The rejection of the appeal due to belated filing was also challenged as a consequence of the initial flawed assessment. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.