Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Tvl. Singarammal Construction, a partnership firm engaged in construction activity in Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu, represented by its partner John Arumugam, GSTIN 33ABUFS5858D1ZP, challenged an assessment order passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, Aranthangi Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai District, along with the consequential summary in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD330423089416C dated 19.04.2023. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash both the assessment order and the DRC-07 summary, contending that the order was passed without any notice to it, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedure governing GST assessments under the CGST/TNGST Act, and sought a direction that the assessment be redone afresh after affording it a proper opportunity of personal hearing. The matter came up before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which heard both the petitioner's counsel and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents before disposing of the case at the very first hearing itself, given the clear absence of notice apparent from the record.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned assessment order was passed without notice to the petitioner, in breach of natural justice.
  2. Whether the order and the Form GST DRC-07 summary were liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh personal hearing.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was passed without any notice being served on the petitioner.
  • The lack of notice violated both the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions governing assessment under the GST Act.
  • The order and the DRC-07 summary ought to be quashed, and the assessment redone only after affording a proper personal hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State Tax authorities, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not dispute the factual position regarding the absence of notice once the record was placed before the Court.
  • No substantive defence on the merits of the underlying tax demand, or on the correctness of the GSTIN-linked assessment figures, was pressed at this stage.
  • The respondents did not oppose a remand, effectively leaving the question of proper procedure to be cured through a fresh order after notice.

Court Order/Findings

  • A perusal of the impugned order showed that it was passed without notice to the petitioner.
  • Since the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity, the order was set aside.
  • The matter was remanded to the State Tax Officer to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, with liberty reserved to the officer to proceed afresh after due notice.

Important Clarification

A GST assessment order passed without prior notice to the taxable person is liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice, irrespective of the merits of the underlying tax demand; High Courts will readily remand such matters for a fresh, lawful assessment rather than adjudicate the tax dispute themselves at the writ stage.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73/74, CGST Act, 2017 - assessment machinery for determination of tax not paid.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 - modes of service of notice on a taxable person.
  • Rule 142, CGST Rules, 2017 - issuance of the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India - writ jurisdiction invoked for quashing the order and remanding the matter.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a thin, procedural disposal. The writ petition was allowed and the assessment order set aside solely for want of notice, without the Court examining or expressing any view on the underlying tax liability or the quantum in dispute. The relief granted favours the Assessee procedurally, in that it secures a fresh hearing before a lawful order can be passed again, but the case cannot be read as a substantive win on the merits, since those merits remain entirely open and are to be decided afresh by the assessing officer after due notice and hearing.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P(MD)No.25987 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
  • Decision Date: 26 October 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Allowed; remanded for fresh order

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.