M/S.Arun Prabhu And Co. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The Court held that since two assessment orders were passed for the same assessment year 2019-2020, and one of these orders had been set aside and the matter remitted back by a previous order of the Court, the present order could only be treated as a non-est order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed the respondent to proceed further pursuant to the directions issued in W.P.(MD) No. 28324 of 2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020. The ratio decidendi is that an authority cannot issue a fresh order for the same period after a previous order has been quashed and remitted, especially when the fresh order is of the same date and from the same authority, effectively bypassing the earlier judicial directive.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Arun Prabhu & Co., challenged an assessment order dated August 10, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi III Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that for the same assessment year 2019-2020, a previous assessment order had already been passed by the respondent. This prior order was set aside by the High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 28324 of 2024, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration due to non-application of mind to the petitioner's reply and failure to determine tax as required by law. The petitioner received a second order dated August 10, 2024, from the same respondent for the same assessment year, which they argued was impermissible. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent could issue a second assessment order for the assessment year 2019-2020 when a previous order for the same period had been set aside and remitted back by this Court? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it is impermissible to have two assessment orders for the same assessment year. They relied on the High Court's previous order in W.P.(MD) No. 28324 of 2024, which had already directed a fresh consideration of the matter. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.01.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and W.M.P.(MD) No.249 of 2025 M/s.Arun Prabhu & Co., Rep., by its Partner B.Paulson Prabhu, GSTIN 33ABHFA9548H1Z9, 687, Gnanagiri Road, Sivakasi-626 2123. .. Petitioner Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi III Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, NGO Colony, Satchiapuram, Sivakasi-626 123. .. Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN 33ABHFA9548H1Z9/2019-20 dated 10.08.2024 (DIN GST/ 33ABHFA9548H1Z9/20/1) and to quash the same as cryptic, non- speaking, illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass order afresh by considering the objections and records _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis filed by the petitioner on 26.06.2024 after affording opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under section 75(4) of the TNGST Act 2017 and as per the guidelines iss
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.