9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 462 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order - petitioner raised a specific ground that the petitioner was not served with any notice seeking explanation with regard to the alleged defects - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Reliance placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in MR. SAHULHAMEED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TUTICORIN-II THIRUNELVELI TAMILNADU 2025 (1) TMI 1021 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes then the State can in addition make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials. The aforesaid judgment of this Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In view of the same the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2024 shall be treated as show cause notice. Petition allowed.
The issues presented and considered in the Madras High Court judgment are as follows:1. Whether the petitioner was served with a notice in compliance with Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act)?2. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 is valid?Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. The relevant legal framework is Section 169 of the TNGST Act, which specifies the methods of serving notices, including in person, by registered post, e-mail, or publication in a newspaper. The Court interpreted Section 169 as mandating strict compliance with the prescribed modes of service to ensure natural justice. The key evidence was the contention raised by the petitioner that they were not served with a notice as required by law. The Court considered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed modes of service. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not served with a notice in compliance with Section 169, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.2. The Court analyzed the assessment order in light of the petitioner's argument regarding non-compliance with the notice requirements. The Court referred to the previous judgment to establish the legal principles governing service of notices under the TNGST Act. The Court found that the assessment order was not sustainable due to the failure to serve a notice in accordance with Section 169. The Court set aside the impugned assessment order and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice, followed by a hearing and appropriate orders by the respondent.Significant Holdings:The Court held that strict compliance with the principles of natural justice, as outlined in Section 169 of the TNGST Act, is essential for serving notices. The Court emphasized that the rules cannot circumvent the statutory provisions regarding the modes of service. The judgment established that failure to serve a notice in compliance with the prescribed methods renders the assessment order invalid. The Court quashed the assessment order and directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice for further proceedings.In conclusion, the Madras High Court judgment focused on the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for serving notices under the TNGST Act. The Court's decision to quash the assessment order highlights the significance of procedural compliance in tax assessments, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.
|
