M/S S R S Constructions vs. The State Tax Officer (Data Analytics)

Held

The Court held that there was a patent discrepancy and bias writ large, as the same officer had signed in two different capacities without a proper explanation from the respondents. The Court found the petitioner's contention regarding the officer assuming dual roles to be valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The Court remitted the cases back to the second respondent (State Tax Officer-1, Adjudication Wing, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli) to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The Court directed that this be done expeditiously, preferably within two months, and crucially, mandated that the petitioner be heard before any fresh orders are passed. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the second respondent. If the petitioner failed to cooperate, the respondents were at liberty to proceed based on available materials.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.S.R.S.Constructions, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 23.02.2024, passed by the first respondent (State Tax Officer (Data Analytics), Intelligence Wing, Virudhunagar) for the tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the same individual, L.Kumaresan, had passed these orders while allegedly assuming dual roles. This individual had previously issued Section 74 notices and summary orders in GST DRC 07 as the Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, and then issued the impugned orders as the State Tax Officer (Data Analytics), Intelligence Wing, Virudhunagar. The petitioner argued that this dual role indicated bias and that the officer had been transferred on 02.08.2023 but still passed these orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders dated 23.02.2024, passed by the first respondent for the tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of patent bias and illegality due to the same officer assuming dual roles as Commercial Tax Officer and State Tax Officer (Data Analytics), contrary to Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in a biased manner because the same officer acted in dual capacities. They further submitted that this officer had already been transferred on 02.08.2023 but proceeded to pass the impugned orders. The petitioner sought to quash the orders as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and requested a fresh assessment order from the second respondent after an opportunity of being heard. Revenue's arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents was unable to explain why the same officer signed in two different capacities for the respective years, admitting a prima facie discrepancy.