Tvl.Singarammal Construction vs. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Singarammal Construction, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings issued by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, Aranthangi Assessment Circle. The impugned proceedings were an order bearing No. GSTIN : 33 ABUFS5858DIZP/2021-22, dated .04.2023 and Form GST DRC-07 Reference No: ZD330423089416C, dated 19.04.2023. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. They sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment after being provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The tax period involved is 2021-22. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the file of the second respondent (State Tax Officer) to pass an order afresh on merits and in accordance with law, with the liberty to the second respondent to do so. The Court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity, leading to the setting aside of the order. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. No specific statutory provisions were discussed in detail, but the violation of natural justice was the primary ground for the decision. The issue of violation of statutory provisions, beyond the procedural aspect of natural justice, was not explicitly decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent are liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed for violating statutory provisions, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing them with a reasonable opportunity, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They also contended that statutory provisions were violated in the passing of the order. They sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) and The State Tax Officer).