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

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Singarammal Construction, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged proceedings issued by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, Aranthangi Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai District, in order No. GSTIN : 33 ABUFS5858DIZP/2020-21, dated .04.2023, and Form GST DRC-07 Reference No: ZD330423089304J, dated 19.04.2023. The petitioner contended that these proceedings were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the order was set aside. The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated. The matter was remanded to the file of the second respondent to pass an order afresh on merits and in accordance with law, with the liberty to the second respondent to do so. The writ petition was allowed on these grounds. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the primary ground of violation of natural justice was sufficient for setting aside the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned order violates statutory provisions, as alleged by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: 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 the order was passed in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment after a personal hearing. Respondents' Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents. However, the court's observation implies that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of notice.