Kanagalakshmi vs. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)

Held

The Court held that the issuance of two assessment orders for the same assessee, on the same date, and for the same value of supply for the assessment year 2019-2020 was unsustainable due to duplication. The Court also found merit in the petitioner's contention that the assessment orders were passed without considering her reply to DRC01A, indicating a potential non-application of mind. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks. Upon compliance, the respondent was to issue a notice indicating which of the two assessment orders they intended to proceed with, and that chosen order would be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner would then have four weeks to submit objections, which the respondent would consider after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ratio is that procedural irregularities, such as duplication of orders and failure to consider assessee's submissions, warrant setting aside of assessment orders and a fresh opportunity for adjudication, subject to certain conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Kanagalakshmi, filed two writ petitions challenging two assessment orders dated August 17, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Palani-I Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that two assessment orders were issued for the same assessee, on the same date, and for the same value of supply, indicating a duplication. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed without considering her reply to DRC01A, demonstrating a non-application of mind by the respondent authority. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present her objections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of two assessment orders for the same assessee, on the same date, and for the same value of supply for the assessment year 2019-2020 is legally sustainable, and if not, which order should be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the assessment orders are vitiated by a non-application of mind by the respondent authority, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission that her reply to DRC01A was overlooked? (Question of law and fact, turning on the assessment process and adherence to procedural requirements). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the duplication of assessment orders necessitates the quashing of one of them. She further contended that the orders were passed without considering her reply to DRC01A, indicating a failure to apply mind. She relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax and requested a final opportunity to present objections. Respondent's arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent did not seriously dispute the duplication of orders and did not have serious objections to granting the petitioner a final opportunity.