Tvl Gopinathan Construction vs. The Deputy Tax Officer Ii

Held

The Court set aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 28.04.2023 and remitted the case back to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the Show Cause Notices that preceded the assessment order, along with a pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed tax from the Cash Credit Ledger, within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court directed that the set-aside assessment order would be treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notices. All issues were left open for the petitioner to canvass before the respondent. The Court explicitly stated that it was disposing of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No specific provision of the GST Act was discussed in detail to form the ratio decidendi, but the decision was based on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Gopinathan Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Tax Officer-II for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notices issued prior to the assessment order, including Notice in Form ASMT-10 dated 03.03.2022, Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01A dated 11.14.2022, Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 17.11.2022, and the Personal Hearing Notice dated 24.02.2023. The petitioner only became aware of the assessment order when the department initiated recovery proceedings. The petitioner contended that there were several issues with the assessment order and no grounds to sustain it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 28.04.2023, passed for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of prior notices and unawareness of the proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the notices issued by the respondent and consequently did not participate in the proceedings or file a reply. They further submitted that there were several issues with the impugned assessment order, rendering it unsustainable. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent is the authority that passed the impugned assessment order.