Panchavarnam Saravanan vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court accepted the petitioner's explanation that they did not notice the hosting of the notices, finding it acceptable in light of the reasoning in W.P.No.4122 of 2022 (Sakthi Steel Trading). The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might eventually be liable to pay tax. To balance the interests of both parties, the Court directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax through the Electronic Cash Ledger within 30 days. The impugned order, which was quashed, was to be treated as a corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 22.09.2023. The petitioner was directed to file a detailed reply within 30 days, and the respondent was instructed to pass a speaking order on merits after hearing the petitioner within the stipulated time. The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated due to insufficient notice.

Facts

The petitioner, Panchavarnam Saravanan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and a summary order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural East Circle, for the tax period 2017-18. The impugned orders confirmed a proposal made in a show cause notice dated 22.09.2023. The petitioner contended that they did not receive the show cause notice and were not aware of the proceedings, leading to a violation of natural justice. The petitioner argued that mere hosting of notices on the web portal was insufficient and physical service through Registered Post was necessary. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, took notice of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order and summary order dated 28.12.2023 are void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the sufficiency of notice served on the petitioner for the tax period 2017-18? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to properly serve the show cause notice and subsequent orders. They contended that mere hosting of notices on the web portal is insufficient for valid service, and physical service through Registered Post is mandatory. Reliance was placed on decisions from this Court in W.P.No.4122 of 2022 (Sakthi Steel Trading Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)) and other cases, including W.P.Nos.22369 of 2023 and batch (M/S.Sabari Infra Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, (ST), Chennai), Henna Medicals Vs. State Tax Officer, and the Supreme Court's order in SLP.(C)No.27827-27828 of 2023 (The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs. Suncraft Energy Private Limited and others). Respondent's Arguments: - The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment for the respondent regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim.