Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Dev Construction, represented by its Proprietor N. Deivendran, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Proper Officer, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tenkasi. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as they were not provided a reasonable opportunity to submit supporting documents and participate in a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. The revenue was represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes).
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 was indeed issued without hearing the petitioner, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, subject to the petitioner remitting 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. This was done to provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The Court directed that after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued by the Proper Officer within five months from the date of remittance of the 25% tax demand. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Proper Officer is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording them a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit supporting documents, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand, as per an endorsement made. The revenue, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), accepted notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue beyond accepting notice and appearing before the court.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY CNR:{HCMD011467482026} AND WMP(MD) No. 22391 of 2026 Tvl.Dev Construction Rep. by its Proprietor N.Deivendran ..Petitioner(s) Vs
The Proper Officer, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), SBI Bank 3rd Floor, Near Yanai Palam, Tenkasi - 627811
The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) Madurai or Camp Office at 1st Floor, Dr.M.G.R.Integrated Bus Terminal, Veinthankulam, Tirunelveli - 62702 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide his order in GSTIN 33HMZPD1022B1ZG/2024-25 dated 11.05.2026 and quash the same as it is in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the 1st respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For P
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.